Update: 12:42 PM EST
A judge in Louisiana on Monday struck down the state’s gay marriage ban, declaring that it violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection, due process and “full faith and credit” between states.
State Judge Edward D. Rubin ruled Monday in favor of a lesbian couple’s petition to both be recognized as their son’s parents, holding that “Louisiana cannot define and regulate marriage to the extent that it infringes upon the constitutional rights of its petitioners.”
“This court finds that there is no rational connection between Louisiana’s laws prohibiting same sex marriage and its goals of linking children to intact families formed by their biological parents,” he wrote.
Buddy Caldwell, Louisiana’s Republican attorney general, plans to appeal the ruling.
The case was brought by a lesbian couple, Angela Costanza and Chasity Brewer, who legally married in California and wanted their union recognized by the state of Louisiana. They wanted to both be recognized as legal parents of Brewer’s biological son, conceived through a sperm donor.
Rubin added: “Lest we forget, there was a time in America’s history when gays and lesbians were not permitted to even associate in public. Many in this country held a deep seated hatred for the lifestyle of gays, lesbians, bisexuals etc.”
The decision was celebrated by same-sex marriage advocates.
“Yesterday’s ruling is about progress,” said the group Equality Louisiana, “and while we know that those who are committed to standing on the wrong side of history will certainly fight this judgment, we look forward to vigorously supporting yesterday’s ruling and winning the conversation and legal battles that will lead us to a more equal Louisiana.”
Anyone know how this comports with the federal judge ruling that LA’s same sex marriage ban is constitutional?
Fear not, bigots! Some judicial jackhole in one of your idiot red states will no doubt follow this up with an expansive Hobby Lobby ruling that says religious institutions of all kinds are exempt from employment discrimination laws. Sovereign Citizenry: Coming soon to a brave new world near you.
I believe the current status of the ban in the federal courts will (for now) overrule the state court’s finding – the Supremacy Clause and all that. If the district court judge doesn’t stay his ruling for the time being, I’m sure the state appellate court will.
At the same time, the state district court judge undoubtedly recognizes that the federal court ruling is an outlier that ultimately will not stand.
A single federal judge’s ruling is not binding precedent for state courts. [A bit of inside baseball – not even a federal court of appeals ruling would be here – so we can have the 9th Cir. say one thing and the CA Supreme Court another, e.g.] So, the fact that federal judge upheld the ban can be ignored by the state judge in lieu of all the other rulings that struck them down.
Only the USSC would be. And, federal courts in these cases repeatedly have stayed their rulings for the state to appeal. So, state rulings might be another way to get to the promised land, though this too is but a lower court ruling.
That’s going to make “Bobby” Jindahl cry. Better pass the collection plate.