Started By
Message
locked post

New Orleans Federal Court hears same-sex marriage case today.

Posted on 6/25/14 at 11:18 am
Posted by Tigerlaff
FIGHTING out of the Carencro Sonic
Member since Jan 2010
20839 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 11:18 am
The Plaintiffs want LA to recognize their out-of-state marriages.

LINK

quote:

Should Louisiana's government recognize a same-sex marriage that is sanctioned in another state? It's a question that a federal judge in New Orleans will be asked to consider Wednesday morning, when attorneys on both sides of the national debate argue whether a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision requires Louisiana to recognize the marriages.

The heart of the issue is the high court's decision in United States v. Windsor, a New York case. Justices ruled 5-4 that the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages from states that allow such unions.

Attorneys for six same-sex couples in Louisiana and the advocacy group Forum for Equality Louisiana Inc. sued the state last year. They argue that Louisiana must recognize their unions under the Windsor decision. Attorneys for Louisiana disagree, saying that in its Windsor decision, the high court affirmed states' rights to define marriage, and that Louisiana has defined it as being between a woman and a man.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman must interpret Windsor here. With no facts in dispute, Feldman, appointed by President Ronald Regan, must address only the question of law. In legal terms, both sides have asked for partial summary judgments.

The plaintiffs aren't asking Feldman to order Louisiana to legalize same-sex marriages. Rather, they want the judge to strike down a 1999 Louisiana law and a constitutional amendment that voters approved in 2004. Those laws define marriage as being between a man and a woman and forbid the state to recognize any other union as a marriage.

At stake is whether Louisiana should allow same-sex couples to file joint income tax returns, to have their names appear on birth certificates of children or to adopt children. Three of the six couples suing Louisiana are raising children together but may not be recognized as two-parent households, according to their court pleadings. They have different tax burdens than marriages involving men and women. They have different inheritance laws and are relegated to the "unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage," New Orleans attorney Scott Spivey wrote for the plaintiffs.

"You can't treat two groups differently without justification, and the state has not offered valid justifications to do so," Chris Otten, chairman-elect of Forum for Equality Louisiana Inc. said Tuesday. "Really it's about a question of legal and social fairness, not just for the couples involved but for the children."

Louisiana, on the other hand, argues that unmarried couples are free to arrange their affairs by contract, to co-own property and to will property to each other. The high court in its Windsor decision reaffirmed the states' "historic and essential authority to define the marital relation," a brief filed on behalf of the state says.

"Windsor thus plainly teaches that states are authorized to determine the shape of marriage, and -- whether their citizens decided to shape it as New York did in 2011 or as Louisiana did in 2004 -- they act rationally in doing so," according to the state's pleadings.

Some states have used that authority to adopt same-sex marriages, but most have not. Louisiana is among the states that have not. Louisiana, in its pleadings, questions whether the decision rests with voters in the respective states or the federal courts.

"It seems clear to Louisiana, from the Windsor opinion, that forcing the states to recognize same-sex marriage would overrule the Windsor decision," said Kyle Duncan, the attorney whom Louisiana hired this year to defend its position on same-sex marriage.

Louisiana isn't alone in the debate. Since the Windsor decision, almost every state that doesn't recognize same-sex marriages has seen lawsuits. As of Tuesday, at least 12 federal courts have struck down state laws, Otten said.

Twenty jurisdictions -- 19 states and Washington D.C. -- recognize same-sex marriages. They include Oregon and Pennsylvania, which have decided not to appeal judges' rulings in their lawsuits, Otten said. He called it "a quickly evolving" legal matter.

Duncan, a special assistant attorney general who'll argue Louisiana's case Wednesday, said the state hopes Feldman does not follow the other federal jurisdictions. "Our view is, those courts are quite fundamentally misreading the Windsor decision," Duncan said.

Feldman has received 23 amicus briefs from parties with interest on one side of the argument or the other. Among them is the city of New Orleans, which weighed in on the side of the same-sex couples by saying the city recognizes domestic partnerships and allows its employees to extend their municipal benefits to their partners.

"Indeed, as expressly set forth in the New Orleans Municipal Code, the city has an interest in strengthening and supporting all caring, committed and responsible family forms," city attorney Sharonda Williams wrote in the brief.

The American Military Partner Association and OutServe-SLDN Inc., which helps gay and lesbian people who are kicked out of the armed forces because of their sexual orientation, says in its brief that a "patchwork" of conflict among states' recognition of same-sex marriage undermines national security. "For many married gay and lesbian couples, the prospect of moving to a state where their marriage would be ignored and dignity affronted will be too high a price to pay for joining or staying in the military," the groups wrote.

Attorney General Buddy Caldwell initially was the named defendant in the suit, but Feldman dismissed him in November under the sovereign immunity claim. In his place, the plaintiffs named Secretary Tim Barfield of the Louisiana Department of Revenue, Secretary Kathy Kliebert of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals and Devin George, state registrar and center director at the health and hospitals department.

The same-sex couples who sued the state are:

John Robicheaux and Derek Penton, who live in New Orleans and were married in Iowa on Sept. 23, 2012.
Courtney and Nadine Blanchard, a Raceland couple who were married in Iowa on Aug. 30, 2013.
Nick Van Sickels and Andrew Bond, who live in New Orleans and were married in Washington D.C. on Dec. 28, 2012.
Jacqueline and Lauren Brettner of New Orleans, who married in New York on Feb. 14, 2012.
Henry Lambert and Carey Bond, who live in New Orleans and were married in New York in Oct. 29, 2011.
Havard Scott and Sergio March Prieto of Shreveport, who and were married in Vermont on July 9, 2010.
Posted by EST
Investigating
Member since Oct 2003
17813 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 11:21 am to
So why did they move to Louisiana?
Posted by Tigerlaff
FIGHTING out of the Carencro Sonic
Member since Jan 2010
20839 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 11:21 am to
Pretty sure they lived in LA and went away to get married. Just a guess.
Posted by MMauler
Member since Jun 2013
19216 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 11:23 am to
Anyone who has read the Windsor opinion realizes that the Supreme Court specifically declined to answer this question. It could have ruled on Section 2 of DOMA (which grants states the right to deny recognizing marriages performed in other states), but it expressly did not rule on Sec. 2.

So, any reliance on Windsor is extremely misplaced. And, it also means that Section 2 of DOMA is still the "law of the land."
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 11:26 am
Posted by genuineLSUtiger
Nashville
Member since Sep 2005
72825 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 11:30 am to
Looks like it's happening. It's inevitable. Just like marijuana legalization in all states.
Posted by petar
Miami
Member since May 2009
5989 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 11:36 am to
quote:

So, any reliance on Windsor is extremely misplaced. And, it also means that Section 2 of DOMA is still the "law of the land."


true. Im sure they also relied on the full faith and credit clause to try to state that section 2 is unconstitutional.
Posted by MMauler
Member since Jun 2013
19216 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 11:53 am to
quote:

true. Im sure they also relied on the full faith and credit clause to try to state that section 2 is unconstitutional.


But Windsor doesn't help them at all.

And, one of the exceptions to the full faith and credit clause is public policy. Louisiana has a Constitutional provision declaring that same-sex marriage is against public policy in Louisiana,
Posted by Toddy
Atlanta
Member since Jul 2010
27250 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 12:18 pm to
Indiana's gay marriage ban was struck down a few hours ago making it the 11th state in the past six months. I hope Louisiana doesn't break this perfect string of victories.
Posted by ApexTiger
cary nc
Member since Oct 2003
53753 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 12:25 pm to
quote:

Pretty sure they lived in LA and went away to get married. Just a guess.



Don't you just love how sin endorsed complicates a lot of things for a lot of people.?

"But it doesn't effect you, what/why you do you care?"

now they get to create problems for states that don't want gay marriage

this is only the beginning
Posted by petar
Miami
Member since May 2009
5989 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 12:29 pm to
quote:

And, one of the exceptions to the full faith and credit clause is public policy. Louisiana has a Constitutional provision declaring that same-sex marriage is against public policy in Louisiana,

The public policy part is likely going to be struck down as having no substantial government interest as Windsor said of the federal DOMA. and as have the other district courts around the country.

While Windsor is not binding authority, it will be certainly persuasive in saying that there is no substantial government interest being served by limiting rights of gay marriage.

Unless the state can find a way to distinguish the federal government's interests from its own in this regards, i imagine the 5th circuit will have a hard time finding a government interest here that is not easier served in a less obtrusive way.
Posted by petar
Miami
Member since May 2009
5989 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 12:31 pm to
quote:

Don't you just love how sin endorsed complicates a lot of things for a lot of people.?

"But it doesn't effect you, what/why you do you care?"

now they get to create problems for states that don't want gay marriage

this is only the beginning

the sky is falling. louisiana will have to recognize a legal contract of another state as required by the constitution. Oh no!

still dont know how this affects you
Posted by genuineLSUtiger
Nashville
Member since Sep 2005
72825 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 12:33 pm to
"Sin" is your idiotic religious definition. Not reality.
Posted by Toddy
Atlanta
Member since Jul 2010
27250 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 12:34 pm to
quote:

Anyone who has read the Windsor opinion realizes that the Supreme Court specifically declined to answer this question. It could have ruled on Section 2 of DOMA (which grants states the right to deny recognizing marriages performed in other states), but it expressly did not rule on Sec. 2.



Maybe it's because Section 2 WAS NOT CHALLENGED in Windsor. Only Section 3 was.
Posted by MMauler
Member since Jun 2013
19216 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 12:41 pm to
quote:

Maybe it's because Section 2 WAS NOT CHALLENGED in Windsor. Only Section 3 was.


The Supreme Court COULD HAVE ruled on it. They specifically declined.

Posted by Tigerlaff
FIGHTING out of the Carencro Sonic
Member since Jan 2010
20839 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 12:42 pm to
quote:

Maybe it's because Section 2 WAS NOT CHALLENGED in Windsor. Only Section 3 was.



Just came in here to say this. He acts like the court carved out an exception for the states. It didn't. The case wasn't about that.

It's what I've come to expect from his terrible armchair lawyering.
Posted by MMauler
Member since Jun 2013
19216 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 12:43 pm to
quote:

Unless the state can find a way to distinguish the federal government's interests from its own in this regards, i imagine the 5th circuit will have a hard time finding a government interest here that is not easier served in a less obtrusive way.



According to the Windsor opinion, it is within the "UNQUESTIONED AUTHORITY" of the states to define what marriage is. It's the Feds who can't deny the "rights" of those that a state allows to marry.

That's why the Scalia dissent was brilliant. It pointed out how absurd the majority opinion is.
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 12:45 pm
Posted by Tigerlaff
FIGHTING out of the Carencro Sonic
Member since Jan 2010
20839 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 12:44 pm to
quote:

The Supreme Court COULD HAVE ruled on it. They specifically declined.



And you think the SCOTUS declining to address an issue means ANYTHING about how they would rule on that issue? They do that all the damn time. We have no idea how they would rule on it,
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 12:45 pm
Posted by MMauler
Member since Jun 2013
19216 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 12:46 pm to
quote:

And you think the SCOTUS declining to address an issue means ANYTHING about how they would rule on that issue?


I think it means that it's still the law of the land.

I also think that the Windsor opinion should be of no consequence to this current issue. Don't get me wrong, politicized and intellectually bankrupt federal judges will use it even though it doesn't even come close to supporting their position. Some will use it out of fear because they've seen what happens to people AND THEIR FAMILIES when they dare to go against the gay terrorist's political agenda.
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 12:48 pm
Posted by petar
Miami
Member since May 2009
5989 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 12:50 pm to
quote:

The Supreme Court COULD HAVE ruled on it. They specifically declined.


That's really common if you follow the Court. Punting an issue is always favorable to the court than setting precident.

quote:

That's why the Scalia dissent was brilliant. It pointed out how absurd the majority opinion is.

might have been brilliant but still was the dissent. There have been many brilliant dissents that died and have no bearing on any laws what so ever.

quote:

it is within the "UNQUESTIONED AUTHORITY" of the states to define what marriage is. It's the Feds who can't deny the "rights" of those that a state allows to marry.

Not according to several federal and circuit courts that since the windsor case have used the windsor case to rule state gay marriage bans as unconstitutional. so either you have something mistaken or they do...

This whole unquestioned authority doesnt mean shite if they don't have a substantial government interest in issuing the ban. so far, none of the states have been able to have a substantial government interest argument that holds any weight
Posted by Tigerlaff
FIGHTING out of the Carencro Sonic
Member since Jan 2010
20839 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 12:53 pm to
quote:

This whole unquestioned authority doesnt mean shite if they don't have a substantial government interest in issuing the ban. so far, none of the states have been able to have a substantial government interest argument that holds any weight


Exactly. "But icky!!!" doesn't pass muster. But this is the 5th circuit, who knows. They might agree.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram