Angela Marie Costanza and her wife, Chastity Shanelle Brewer, were legally married in California. They were in the process of suing to have their marriage recognized in their home state of Louisiana and for second-parent adoption when the U.S. Supreme Court made marriage equality a constitutional right.
Yesterday, the Louisiana Supreme Court dismissed their case, ruling that SCOTUS’ ruling “solved the matter.”
But not all the justices agreed.
In a two paragraph dissent, Justice Jefferson D. Hughes III, who was elected to the Louisiana Supreme Court in 2012, began by saying he couldn’t resist sharing his “honest convictions” over such an important matter. (What is the purpose of getting up on one’s soapbox if not to share their “honest convictions,” after all?) Then he got right to the point.
He didn’t bother providing any legal arguments to support his position that the state should not be forced to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage. “Marriage is not only for the parties,” he wrote. “Its purpose is to provide children with a safe and stable environment in which to grow.”
“This case involves an adoption,” he continued. “The most troubling prospect of same sex marriage is the adoption by same sex partners of a young child of the same sex.”
Why is this so “troubling”? Hughes stops just short of saying, but the implication is clear. That old gays-as-pedophiles slander. But not all of Hughes’ colleagues are complete idiots.
Justice Greg Guidry responded to Hughes’ allegations by pointing out: “[t]he dissenting opinion appears to be unaware of the facts of the case before us, which involves the intra-family adoption of a boy by the female spouse of the boy’s biological mother.”