A federal judge in Louisiana has upheld the state’s ban on gay marriage.
U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman’s ruling on Wednesday was the first defeat in a federal court for same-sex marriage since the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the U.S. government cannot deny equal benefits to married gay couples.
“The State of Louisiana has a legitimate interest under a rational basis standard of review for addressing the meaning of marriage through the democratic process,” Feldman wrote.
Feldman, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1983, described the concept of same-sex marriage as “nonexistent and even inconceivable until very recently.” He wrote, “Many states have democratically chosen to recognize same-sex marriage. But until recent years, it had no place at all in this nation’s history and tradition.”
“This Court is persuaded that Louisiana has a legitimate interest…whether obsolete in the opinion of some, or not, in the opinion of others…in linking children to an intact family formed by their two biological parents, as specifically underscored by Justice Kennedy in Windsor,” Feldman wrote.
The judge also raised the specter of marriages between relatives as a potential consequence of adopting the reasoning pushed by opponents of the ban. “And so, inconvenient questions persist,” he wrote. “For example, must the states permit or recognize a marriage between an aunt and niece? Aunt and nephew? Brother/brother? Father and child? May minors marry? Must marriage be limited to only two people? What about a transgender spouse? Is such a union same-gender or male-female? All such unions would undeniably be equally committed to love and caring for one another, just like the plaintiffs.”
Constitutional challenges to gay marriage bans are quickly making their way up the courts. A slew of district court judges have ruled such bans a violation of the Constitution’s equal protection clause, citing the reasoning in the Supreme Court’s Windsor v. U.S. decision (although the justices didn’t take a position on state bans). This summer, two appeals courts also ruled that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry.
“This ruling is only surprising because so many courts have gone the other way in the last year,” said Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA.
An appeal of Feldman’s decision would be heard by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. If the decision is upheld there, it would set up a split between circuit courts which significantly raises the prospect of the Supreme Court stepping in. Many legal scholars believe the justices will ultimately have the final word.
“The Fifth Circuit leans conservative, so one might think the court would uphold the ban,” Winkler said. “Yet so many judges, regardless of their political leanings, have voted to strike down marriage bans.”
The ruling can be read below.
The ghost of Ronnie Raygun continues to haunt us.
He sure knew how to pick 'em.
LOLOLouisiana. Fucking backwoods dbags.
Now SCrOTUS can take it and Kennedy can finish what he started.
He’s a classy judge.
Real classy.
From Judgepedia:
Judge Feldman blocked a six-month moratorium that the Obama administration placed on new deep-water drilling projects in response to the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Feldman ruled that the Interior Department failed to provide adequate reasoning for the moratorium, implying that disallowing all deep-water drilling was overzealous.[3]
The Department of the Interior immediately planned to appeal the decision to the Fifth Circuit.[4] In October 2010, however, the Obama administration lifted the moratorium on deep-water drilling.[5]
After the ruling by Feldman, his investments and stocks were analyzed, showing that in 2009 he held stocks of companies affected by his ruling. Judge Feldman insisted that he found out about these holdings on June 21 and contacted his broker to sell them on the morning of June 22. According to the The Wall Street Journal, “Under federal law, federal judges are prohibited from deciding cases in which they have financial interests in the parties or the outcome of the case. They are also prohibited from deciding cases in which there is the appearance of a conflict.”[6] Because of the questions surrounding the status of his financial holdings, environmental groups asked that Feldman recuse himself from the case and suspend his ruling.[7][8]
Expressing continued frustration with the Obama Administrations reluctance to open up off shore drilling, Feldman ordered the Obama Administration to decide on five pending deep sea drilling permits within 30 days or be held in contempt of court. Feldman stated in his ruling, “The plaintiff’s operations in the Gulf of Mexico are threatened with endless disability. As the first anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon disaster draws near, any reason that would have justified delays has, under a rule of reason, expired.”[9]
emphasis mine.
Well, upon initial review, the only thing I have to say is, “WTF! Are there no functioning typewriters in Louisiana, or perhaps a decent word processor?” The chopped up lettering renders the ruling nearly unreadable, not that I needed to get the gist … the “vibrancy” of state rights trumping those evil feds breathing down our neck.
I can only imagine what the faithful judge would have written about slavery back in the day.
Many states have democratically chosen to give women the right to vote. But until recent years, women voting had no place at all in this nation’s history and tradition.