http://onenewsnow.com/legal-
Federal judge swims upstream: No constitutional right to gay 'marriage'
Charlie Butts
(OneNewsNow.com)
Thursday, October 23, 2014
A federal judge and his court decision have given new hope that traditional marriage will survive legal attacks by homosexual activists and sympathetic judges.
U.S. District Court Judge Juan Perez-Gimenez, in fact, suggested that other judges have taken liberty with the Windsor decision that was used by the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act.
Perez-Gimenez
Reading from the judge's rule, Ryan Anderson of The Heritage Foundation pulled out the following quote in a Daily Signal story:
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. 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.
Joe Grabowski of the National Organization for Marriage says a favorite quote from the judge's ruling is that it takes "inexplicable contortions of the mind, or perhaps even willful ignorance…to interpret Windsor's endorsement of the states' control of marriage as eliminating the states' control of marriage."
The left responded in a predictable manner, such as left-wing website Slate calling the decision "a comically inane opinion."
Perez-Gimenez also questioned if loosening marriage laws would allow more liberal norms of marriage, such as polygamy, a point which was also mocked by the left. But a Joel Pollack story at Breitbart News reported the federal judge addressed such criticism in his ruling:
Such questions do not arise from "cruel discrimination and ridicule," [the judge] says, but are legitimate and demand that proponents of a "right" to gay marriage "render reasons justifying the change and articulate the principles that they claim will limit this newly fashioned right."
Perez-Gimenez is only the second federal judge out of approximately 30 to rule in favor of state marriage laws. Homosexual activists have won overwhelmingly with the argument that such laws "discriminate" against gays, which they argue violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Grabowski says Puerto Rico is in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which will likely rule on the judge's findings.
OneNewsNow has reported in recent months that pro-family groups and homosexual activists expect the U.S. Supreme Court to eventually rule on the issue.
A federal judge and his court decision have given new hope that traditional marriage will survive legal attacks by homosexual activists and sympathetic judges.
What is the strongest legal argument against homosexual 'marriage'?
U.S. District Court Judge Juan Perez-Gimenez, in fact, suggested that other judges have taken liberty with the Windsor decision that was used by the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act.
Perez-GimenezThe 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. 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.
Joe Grabowski of the National Organization for Marriage says a favorite quote from the judge's ruling is that it takes "inexplicable contortions of the mind, or perhaps even willful ignorance…to interpret Windsor's endorsement of the states' control of marriage as eliminating the states' control of marriage."
The left responded in a predictable manner, such as left-wing website Slate calling the decision "a comically inane opinion."
Perez-Gimenez also questioned if loosening marriage laws would allow more liberal norms of marriage, such as polygamy, a point which was also mocked by the left. But a Joel Pollack story at Breitbart News reported the federal judge addressed such criticism in his ruling:
Such questions do not arise from "cruel discrimination and ridicule," [the judge] says, but are legitimate and demand that proponents of a "right" to gay marriage "render reasons justifying the change and articulate the principles that they claim will limit this newly fashioned right."
Perez-Gimenez is only the second federal judge out of approximately 30 to rule in favor of state marriage laws. Homosexual activists have won overwhelmingly with the argument that such laws "discriminate" against gays, which they argue violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Grabowski says Puerto Rico is in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which will likely rule on the judge's findings.
OneNewsNow has reported in recent months that pro-family groups and homosexual activists expect the U.S. Supreme Court to eventually rule on the issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment