Judge Finds Actual Constitution, Rules Same Sex Marriage Is NOT A Right

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: Email | RSS

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “If you don’t know, Louisiana is the most pro-life of all the 50 states.  I’m proud of that.  We have very strict laws, very limited access, and where there is access, you will find Protestants and Catholics gathered together outside praying for those women that go in those clinics, begging them to not do it, offering their homes, offering their hearts, offering their wallets to not do it.  I’ve talked about this before.”  Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

[reading]

On Wednesday, a federal judge in Louisiana ended same-sex marriage’s federal-court win streak.

[end reading]

Mike:  By the way, this case could have gone to Martin Feldman or federal judge and liberal patsy Ginger Berrigan.  If it had gone to Berrigan, you can be assured that Berrigan, clueless Ms. Berrigan, would have sided with the prior courts and would have been a rubber stamp — Ms. Berrigan, one individual, would have struck down the will of the people of the State of Louisiana.  If you don’t know, Louisiana is the most pro-life of all the 50 states.  I’m proud of that.  We have very strict laws, very limited access, and where there is access, you will find Protestants and Catholics gathered together outside praying for those women that go in those clinics, begging them to not do it, offering their homes, offering their hearts, offering their wallets to not do it.  I’ve talked about this before.  The Danielle Inn here in Covington, Louisiana, look it up on the internet, home to expectant mothers who have nowhere else to go and who have foregone, will not undergo an abortion.  Similarly, Louisiana has steadfastly and devoutly refused to acknowledge any homosexual marriages regardless from which state, and we have a law on the books to prove it.  This is what was at issue.

 

---

[private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|FP-Founding Brother|FP-Founding Father|FP-Lifetime]

The decision is a real potential setback for the cause of marriage equality [Mike: If there is such a thing, and I don’t believe there is, not in the manner that he’s talking about.]. Unlike the recent similar opinion in a Tennessee state court, this is not an overmatched judge throwing up his hands in terror. Feldman’s opinion represents a fundamental challenge, couched in terms of recent Supreme Court precedent, to the claim that United States v. Windsor requires states to allow same-sex marriage. And, I think not coincidentally, its heart is drawn from an opinion writer earlier this year by Justice Anthony Kennedy—whose vote will very likely determine the result when the marriage issue reaches the Court.

In his dissent in Windsor, Chief Justice John Roberts extended an invitation to lower courts to read that case as an ode to state power rather than to marriage equality. In Robicheaux v. Caldwell, Feldman for the first time makes Roberts’s words the basis of a decision a claim for marriage equality. Conspicuous by its absence is any reference to Justice Antonin Scalia’s more prominent dissent, which angrily prophesied victory for same-sex marriage when it comes before the Court again.

Feldman’s opinion is aggrieved in tone, implying he is just one of those old-fashioned people who think heterosexual marriage and the will of the people [Mike: And the will of the Christian God] deserve deference even if this new generation doesn’t think so.

[end reading]

Mike:  Folks, we’re adults, some of us older than our younger peers.  How smart were you when you were 25 years old?  You knew everything.  I know I did.  Not only did I know everything, I was immortal.  How about you?  Were we?  No.  We weren’t immortal.  We didn’t know everything.  I don’t know everything today.  You know what?  I want to go to my grave not knowing — I like not knowing everything.  That means I have tomorrow to look forward to.  What are you going to let me learn today, Lord?  What am I going to learn today?  I can’t wait to be taught.  There are some things that we do know, some transcendent, eternal truths.  It’s our duty to pass those on to the children.

Even if you have an inkling that some of these eternal truths may be correct, even if you’re not the most devout and you’re not the most holy, sacred person, or observant holy of the holy sacred teachings and writings, if you even think that there’s a hope, a scintilla that they’re correct, your duty is to err on the side of safety and caution.  You’re being far more safe and far more cautious in chastising your children to remain chaste before marriage than you ever will be handing them condoms and birth control, just to give an example.  Err on the side of caution.  Is that asking too much?  We’re adults for Heaven’s sake.  Act like it.  Or we should all act like it from time to time.  Back to the story:

[reading]

“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,” Feldman writes. He dismisses the multiple decisions by other federal courts as “a pageant of empathy; decisions impelled by a response of innate pathos. Courts that … appear to have assumed the mantle of a legislative body.” [Mike: Sounds like Judge Feldman might listen to this radio show and Wilkow Majority from time to time, and that’s a good thing.] Same-sex marriage, he suggests, is an undiscovered country, and should only be entered by a political decision after “[f]ree and open and probing debate. Indeed, fractious debate.”

In discussing the political dialogue over marriage, Feldman makes his most direct appeal to the High Court of Kennedy. He notes that Kennedy, in a decision earlier this year, wrote an opinion upholding a Michigan voter initiative in which a majority of voters cast ballots to outlaw race-based affirmative action. Feldman applies the rationale of that opinion, called BAMN v. Schuette, to voter initiatives that bar same-sex marriage:

[end reading]

Mike:  Folks, this is just the most delicious of all ironies.  This is the federal judiciary and those advocates of it as a super legislature being hoisted by their own petards, as Shakespeare would say. [/private]

[reading]

This case shares striking similarities with Schuette. Just as in Schuette, this case involves “[d]deliberative debate on sensitive issues [that] all too often may shade into rancor.” And so just like the Supreme Court very recently held, this Court agrees “that does not justify removing certain court-determined issues from the voters’ reach. Democracy does not presume that some subjects are either too divisive or too profound for public debate.”

[end reading]

Mike:  You know what Judge Feldman just said?  We are not super gods in black robes and our opinion does not outweigh the opinion of 8.5 million voters in California, 1.2 million voters in the State of Virginia, and 4.8 million citizens of the State of Louisiana.  That’s what he just said.  We’re judges.  We’re not über gods.  We’re not always right.  We’re not infallible.  There’s only one thing infallible in this world and it’s not a federal judgeship.

End Mike Church Show Transcript