We knew that the anti-gay right would be gloating over their victory yesterday in Louisiana but in the case of Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, how can one get angry when the gloat is just damn so delusional:
Is Perkins for real? Just when exactly did Feldman rely on research? One of the objections to Feldman's ruling is that he clearly ignored research and shaped his opinion as if he was writing anti-gay talking points on marriage equality.
See my post from yesterday concerning the problems with Feldman's ruling.
 |
| Tony Perkins |
Relying on research -- not the Left's misshapen idea of "rights" -- the Reagan appointee (U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman) was blunt about the danger of chasing the political and cultural winds. "Public attitude might be becoming more diverse, but any right to same-sex marriage is not yet so entrenched as to be fundamental," he said plainly. Unlike so many of his peers, Feldman rightly recognized that the courts have no authority to unilaterally change the definition of our most fundamental social institution. While the courts stampede voters' rights to force their agenda, Feldman defended government by the people, for the people. "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." We applaud him -- as well as state Attorney General Buddy Caldwell and special counsel Kyle Duncan and Mike Johnson, for standing up for the rule of law. They may be in the minority in the courts -- but they're in the majority where it counts: public opinion.
Is Perkins for real? Just when exactly did Feldman rely on research? One of the objections to Feldman's ruling is that he clearly ignored research and shaped his opinion as if he was writing anti-gay talking points on marriage equality.
See my post from yesterday concerning the problems with Feldman's ruling.
No comments:
Post a Comment