Federal Judge Upholds Gay Marriage Ban, Slams ‘Ignorance’ Of Other Judges

FILE- In this June 26, 2013 file photo, gay rights advocate Vin Testa waves a rainbow flag in front of the Supreme Court in Washington. On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a pair of landmark rulings, one ... FILE- In this June 26, 2013 file photo, gay rights advocate Vin Testa waves a rainbow flag in front of the Supreme Court in Washington. On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a pair of landmark rulings, one striking down a law that denied federal recognition to same-sex marriages and the other clearing the way for gay couples to wed legally in California. In the 12 months since the Supreme Court issued a pair of landmark rulings on same-sex marriage, the ripple effects of those rulings have transformed the national debate over marriage, prompting many people on both sides to conclude that its spread nationwide is inevitable. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File) MORE LESS

A judge upheld Puerto Rico’s ban on gay marriage on Monday, becoming the first Democratic-appointed federal jurist to rule against same-sex couples’ right to wed since the Supreme Court axed the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013.

Carter-appointed Judge Juan Manuel Pérez-Giménez ruled that the Windsor v. U.S. opinion did not pave the way for same-sex marriage, contradicting all but one other federal trial judge who has reviewed the issue since the landmark ruling.

“The Windsor opinion did not create a fundamental right to same-gender marriage nor did it establish that state opposite-gender marriage regulations are amenable to federal constitutional challenges,” Pérez-Giménez wrote. “If anything, Windsor stands for the opposite proposition: it reaffirms the States’ authority over marriage, buttressing Baker’s conclusion that marriage is simply not a federal question.”

More than a dozen federal judges on the district and appellate level have struck down gay marriage bans as unconstitutional, citing Windsor to argue that they amount to impermissible discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Pérez-Giménez took a swipe at those judges.

“It takes inexplicable contortions of the mind or perhaps even willful ignorance – this Court does not venture an answer here – to interpret Windsor’s endorsement of the state control of marriage as eliminating the state control of marriage,” he wrote.

Puerto Rico Marriage DCt Ruling 10-21-14

6
Show Comments

Notable Replies

  1. His opinion speaks, nay shrieks, for itself. Shouldn’t be too hard to overrule on appeal.

  2. Someone’s cranky. Probably ready for a nap.
    A nice long one.

  3. Avatar for cpinva cpinva says:

    apparently, he’s never heard of the US Constitution. who’s he trying to please, with an opinion that stands zero chance of sustention on appeal?

  4. Now that every single reason given by opponents of same-sex marriage to “justify” discrimination against same-sex couples has been shot down as nonsense (“will destroy the institution of marriage”, “marriage is all about children”), attempts to enforce religious beliefs, or irrelevant and ignorant appeals to history (“it has always been one man and one woman”), Judge Pérez-Giménez has cycled back to arguing that there doesn’t have to be any justification for the discrimination.

    But, only in a legal sense. He couldn’t help going for the nonsense and irrelevant/ignorant appeals to history justifications in his conclusion:

    Traditional marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order. And ultimately the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage.

    Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries. The question now is whether judicial “wisdom” may contrive methods by which those solid principles can be circumvented or even discarded.

    “Well-tested, well-proven”? Can we get Bill Nye over here for quick Fundamentals of Science lesson?

  5. Avatar for dectra dectra says:

    Juan Manuel Pérez-Giménez is off base here…Thank God the Appeals Court will overturn his stupidity.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for berkshire_boy Avatar for cpinva Avatar for ottnott Avatar for magical_panda Avatar for dectra

Continue Discussion