If you were a federal judge whose decisions are almost always upheld on appeal, and you’ve decided that just once you’d like to know what it’s like to have one of your rulings overturned, you might write a ruling just like Judge Martin Feldman’s dreadful antigay marriage decision.
It’s hard to fathom how such an experienced federal judge could have written such a terrible decision. And we don’t just mean it’s terrible because we don’t like it — he’s just objectively wrong about a who bunch of things.
For example, he calls homosexuality a choice, good lord. Maybe it’s because he was appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1983, and he’s frozen in time in the early ’80s?
And then, later on, he says that the 14th Amendment specifically prohibits discrimination based on race. That’s important, because the 14th Amendment contains that due process and equal protection clauses, and is a cornerstone of the lawsuits against marriage bans. If it specifically mentioned race but not other characteristics, it would be a lot harder to protect citizens from discrimination.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
The only problem with Feldman’s statement, of course, is that it isn’t true. There’s nothing about race in the 14th Amendment.
There are plenty of other problems with the decision, and we have every confidence that it can’t stand up to any sort of review.
But will it ever get to the point of being reviewed? That’s hard to say. The plaintiffs in Louisiana have already started the appeals process. But in just a few weeks, the Supreme Court will be back in session, and they’ll have the opportunity to take up at least three marriage cases. (Or five, if Wisconsin and Indiana hurry. Or eight, if we get a ruling in Idaho, Hawaii and Nevada soon.)
While the Supreme Court deliberates, other federal courts might decide to just wait until they get a final decision. That means a pause in the litigation until as late as June. So it’s possible that the Louisiana decision could wind up sticking around for a long long time.
Aromaeus
That ruling came right out of his old crusty, dusty white ass.
AtticusBennett
it’s actually a rather epic fail on his part, and exposes the embarrassing flaws of the judicial system. his “ruling” basically comes down to “i know i can’t explain this intelligently, so i won’t even try. i vote against it cuz i don’t like gays”
it’ll be a footnote in history and law books as a moment when a bigoted old coot made a mockery of his job and country.
PJBFan
Once upon a time, Judge Feldman would have been right on the money with regard to the 14th Amendment. It is only very recently, within the last 50 to 60 years, that the 14th Amendment has been read to apply to sex discrimination, along with other forms of discrimination. Indeed, it does not apply as strongly when it applies in cases other than those of race, national origin, or alienage. Hence the use of intermediate scrutiny for sex discrimination, and rational basis for all other forms of discrimination. I would also note that, if the 14th Amendment meant in 1919 what it does today, the 19th Amendment would have been wholly unnecessary, and women would automatically have the franchise.
That being said, such analysis is out of step with modern understandings of the 14th Amendment. While I favor an originalist view of the Constitution, meaning that it meant what it meant when written, I would say that his argument fails, given the law as it stands.
Note that this is not intended to be legal advice.
Merv
@PJBFan: Sorry, but your post does not have First Amendment protection since there was no internet when that amendment was written.
curan
If I am reading this article correctly, Feldman is extremely intelligent and is rarely overturned.
That being the case, he must have known of the glaring errors in this ruling before he delivered it.
Why? What purpose is served with such erroreneous conclusions?
Perhaps this is a quiet admission of the failing logic of these bans.
AtticusBennett
Curan – what he did is what low-thinkers do when they say “well, let’s agree to disagree” or “well i’m entitled to my opinion” – it’s what someone says/does when they realize that they’re wrong, because they can’t intelligently defend their chosen stances, and then resort to some “oh well, let’s just pretend i’m not wrong even though we know that i am because i’m too proud/insecure to concede that i’m a complete idiot about this”
Cam
He also tried to use the fertility argument to support anti-gay bigotry, but the Supreme Court specifically attacked that argument in arguments.
mdhess
Being made a federal judge doesn’t mean that you act honestly in your reasoning. This judge tries to maintain some privileged status based on equipment down there. It’s very silly.
Xzamilio
@Cam: Exactly… and New Mexico, the only state that didn’t have laws banning gay marriage in its Constitution, completely eviscerated that “for the children” crap. This was just intellectual laziness and antiquated beliefs on the part of that judge. Who knows? Maybe he did it to quell the rabid fundamentalists in Louisiana and knows it will be overturned when SCOTUS finally addresses it.
yousir75
Don’t be the farm. The appellate court that would have to deal with an appeal from this a$$hat’s ruling, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, is notoriously right wing.