Louisiana residents sound off against awful marriage equality ruling

When Justice Martin Feldman ruled for Louisiana's marriage equality ban two days ago, he conveniently forgot about a number of folks. And they aren't happy:



 Hat tip to Jeremy Hooper.

What a difference a day makes in marriage equality cases

The day after suffering a minor setback in losing a marriage equality court case in Louisiana, the lgbt community springs back today with a marriage equality victory in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. This victory eliminates marriage equality bans in Indiana and Louisiana.

This unanimous decision by the three judges was not a surprise, seeing how they practically ran the defenders of the ban out of court during the trial in late August.

Rather than make a large comparison between today's decision and yesterday's decision, I thought I would focus on the one thing which made the difference and that will probably continue make the difference in these cases:

Justice Martin Feldman in ruling for Louisiana's marriage equality ban:

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.

Justice Richard Posner in today's decision:

Our pair of cases is rich in detail but ultimately straightforward to decide. The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction— that same-sex couples and their children don’t need marriage because same-sex couples can’t produce children, intended or unintended—is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously.

The difference is stark. Posner and his fellow justices considered how the lack of marriage equality harms same-sex families with children. Feldman did not. In fact, Feldman omitted the fact that same-sex families with children exist.

In my opinion, that's what these cases will come down to - whether these families deserve protection given to them by marriage. Or do they deserve to be omitted and ignored.

'Senior GOP spokesman comes out of the closet' & other Thursday midday news briefs

One Year Later, Horror Stories About This City’s LGBT Non-Discrimination Law Haven’t Come True - We really need to be keeping a record of how many times anti-gay horror stories don't come true.

James Richardson Comes Out: 'I'm A Senior GOP Spokesman, And I'm Gay.' - That "DAMN! DAMN! DAMN!" you are hearing is not the ghost of Esther Rolle reprising the scene from "Good Times" when her character dealt with the death of her husband, James. It's coming from the anti-gay industry as a GOP spokesman comes out of the closet.  

Did Daniel Pierce's Coming-Out Video Upset You? Here Are 5 Things You Can Do - The video of the young man assaulted by his family when he came out has generated considerable buzz. Now let's talk about the other children who face awful situations when coming out. What can be done for them? 

 Why The Dallas Cowboys Are An Excellent Fit For Michael Sam - Because their defense sucks. Okay the article doesn't make it sound so bad. Sorry, that was the bitch in me talking.  

Bronx Pastor Running For State Office Praises Uganda’s Anti-Gay Laws - Oh nice! (sarcasm fully intended)

FRC's Tony Perkins is practically delusional about LA marriage equality decision

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:

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.

Marriage equality opponents won't get momentum with Louisiana victory

Today, a federal judge in Louisiana upheld that state's anti-marriage equality law,  thereby breaking the lgbt community's streak of successes in the courts when it comes to marriage equality cases after the SCOTUS's Windor ruling.

However, other than having to deal with the gloating and overreaction of anti-gay groups and spokespeople, I don't necessarily see this ruling as a bad thing for two reasons.

1. No new rationale against marriage equality - The thing more nauseating than the ruling is the rationale U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman used to rule for the state of Louisiana. His ruling reads like anti-gay talking points from the National Organization for Marriage.

His choice of words to describe lgbt couples and use of the slippery slope argument caught many people's attention. Ian Millhiser of Think Progress said:

At one point, he describes being gay as one of several “lifestyle choices” a person can make. At another point in his opinion, he compares same-sex marriage to marriage between “aunt and niece,” “aunt and nephew,” or “father and child.” He also likens marriage equality to polygamous marriages.

David Ferguson of  Raw Story goes into detail about Feldman's use of the slippery slope argument:

“For example,” he wrote, “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.”

No, argued Feldman, the prevailing definition of marriage has been good for millennia and therefore is good enough for the Court.

He also said the following about the purpose of marriage, according to Chris Geidner of Buzzfeed:

Feldman concluded first that no “fundamental right” was at stake — “Public attitude might be becoming more diverse, but any right to same-sex marriage is not yet so entrenched as to be fundamental” — and that laws that distinguish based on sexual orientation are not subjected to heightened scrutiny. As such, only the lowest level of scrutiny — rational basis review — applied to the ban, meaning the state needed only to show a legitimate reason for barring same-sex couples from marrying.

With that, he examined the reasons the state gave for the ban and concluded that they “offer a credible, and convincing, rational basis” for the ban.

Specifically, Feldman wrote:

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.

 
And according to Ferguson,  he made light of the other rulings before him, i.e. those ruling favor of marriage equality:

 “The federal court decisions thus far exemplify a pageant of empathy; decisions impelled by a response of innate pathos.”

So what does this mean? Basically the anti-gay industry lucked out and found one judge who, for whatever reason, actually bought into their ridiculous arguments against marriage equality.  But after the consistent rejections by other courts,  this ruling says more about Feldman's personal beliefs than it does about the argument over marriage equality, particularly when one takes into account the language and rationale he used.

2. This victory does not give the other side momentum - No doubt anti-gay groups and their spokespeople will gloat in press releases and interviews about how this proves marriage equality isn't inevitable. However, no matter which way the ruling went, we all know this won't be finally decided by any court except for SCOTUS. And in terms of that, anti-gay groups may claim that they have momentum, but don't be fooled.  We still have a long way to go and based on other court deliberations, those against marriage equality will probably have a lot more losses than successes before we get there.  And as today's ruling shows, they have no new arguments against marriage equality.

Having said that, I think that today's ruling should also serve as a stark reminder for the lgbt community. Let's not be so quick to celebrate before the battle is over. No matter how many folks do say that our right to marry is inevitable, the battle is never over until its over.  And until that time, we shouldn't be slacking off in telling our stories and doing what we can to make marriage equality a reality.

'Ex-gays lose another leader, Michael Sam becomes a Cowboy' & other Wednesday midday news briefs

Former Exodus International activist: 'I am glad that the courts are striking down all the marriage bans across the country' - More proof that in the long run, right and basic goodness wins out. 

Cowboys sign Michael Sam to practice squad - It's the practice squad but it's a damn good start. Sam has said he wants to prove himself and he should have the opportunity regardless of sexual orientation. One thing though - does this mean I have to drop my over 30-year vendetta against the Dallas Cowboys? In 1980, they beat my Steelers in a preseason game and you know us gay folks don't forget @!%.  I won't even bring up Superbowl XXX.  

New York City St. Patrick’s Day Parade To Allow LGBT Group For First Time Ever - Oh this is going to be interesting . . .  

FRC's Craig James: Religious Right Should Be More Like The LGBT Rights Movement - Well some of them are part the way there. There are plenty members of the religious right who are just like lgbts . . . except for that part about being in the closet. 

 Daily Caller Defends Racist, Transphobic Writer Against “Politically Correct Hysteria” - Because sooner or later, us "politically correct" folks will stop people from using ugly language describing African-Americans and folks of the Jewish faith. Oh, we are suuuch bullies.

Duck Dynasty guy says he is as 'homophobic as Jesus'

In my last post, I pointed out that comments by the AFA's Bryan Fischer proved just how homophobia rots one's brain. I think that this morning, Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty proves that homophobia not only rots your brain but makes you self-righteous while it's going on. By the way, Jesus never said a word about lgbts.

 
And lest I forget, don't you just LOVE the way he dodges his past controversial statement about racism?