For the second time Judge Martin Feldman rules against Obama administration
Posted on | September 3, 2014 | 41 Comments
USA TODAYJudge Martin Feldman is a conservative judge in La. several years ago he ruled against Obama administration and and issued injunction against a ban on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, which helped the gas and Oil industry to stay afloat.
-
Today Judge Feldman ruled to uphold a ban on gay marriage in LA.
The decision is actually not anti-gay, it simply upholds the right of the citizens of the state to define the marriage, whether it is a union between a one man and one woman or or whether it allows homosexual marriage and in some cases polygamy.
As we know, Obama and his administration has long pushed for nation -wide legalization of gay and lesbian marriages irregardless of the will of the people in most states. Majority of states passed laws banning gay marriages. I, personally, feel that it shuld be up to the people of the states, not up to unelected federal judges to define the marriage.
Definition of marriage and gay marriage is something that should come from the voters, not federal judges. In CA voters passed prop 8, which defied marriage as a union between one man and one woman. A gay couple shopped for an openly gay federal judge, who undid the law, which passed after multiple battles and millions of dollars spent on both sides. Our attorney General, Kamela Harris, recipient of large donations from the Gay and Lesbian community, decided not to defend the state law, even though it was her duty, as AG to do so.
The issue of gay marriage was not resolved on the merits by the Supreme Court. Until now the federal law, Defend of Marriage act, DOMA, was stricken not because the Supreme court decided that every state has to recognize the gay marriage, but because it stated that this is a state issue and not a federal issue, that it is up to the states to decide.
We can expect this and multiple other cases to reach the Supreme Court as now there is a real controversy: some federal judges have stricken bans on gay marriage, while others affirmed them.
We can expect Anthony Kenny, a perpetual swing vote, to decide on this one. He is currently wedged between Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas on one side and Breyer, Kagen, Sotomyor and Bader-Ginsburg on the other side.
In the last years Kennedy leaned more towards the left, however he might rule that allowing gay marriage should be up to the voters, that the definition of marriage, age to get marriage, marital benefits, is a state issue and it should be decided by the states under the 10th amendment and by the voters of the states, not by the elitist federal judges.
So, what say you Justice Kennedy?
Louisiana gay marriage ban upheld by federaljudge
The Times-Picayune – NOLA.com - 57 minutes agoU.S. District Judge Martin Feldman issued a ruling Wednesday (Sept. 3) upholding Louisiana’s ban on gay marriage, breaking a string of …
Category: Uncategorized
Comments
41 Responses to “For the second time Judge Martin Feldman rules against Obama administration”
Leave a Reply
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
September 3rd, 2014 @ 11:47 am
These Judges who rule against the people are just like Obama himself. They are gay perverts just like him who are abusing their power.
September 3rd, 2014 @ 11:54 am
Since Obama was not a party to this litigation, how, exactly, did the judge “rule against Obama”?
Is it that you, who claim to be a constitutional attorney, believe that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution only applies to certain people and/or groups? Or just to groups you and certain others approve?
Enquiring minds would like to know.
September 3rd, 2014 @ 12:27 pm
I explained, that he ruled against the policy of Obama administration which is pushing for legalization of gay marriage everywhere
September 3rd, 2014 @ 12:28 pm
I actually don’t think that all of those judges are gay, they are just elitist and do not care about the people
September 3rd, 2014 @ 12:44 pm
Legislators don’t like initiative petitions because they don’t like the people voting on laws. They want to make the decisions.
Judges don’t like legislators or people voting on laws. They want to make the decisions.
Obama doesn’t like Congress deciding the law. He wants to make the decisions.
Since when did we become a nation of dictators?
September 3rd, 2014 @ 12:53 pm
We are being bombarded these days with all this gay crap everytime we turn around. They are telling our kids it’s ok. They are encouraging kids to have sex change operations, etc. Normal people are fed up with it. It is perverse and the Democrats support every bit of it including Soebarkah. If the judges aren’t perverse then why would they want to force it on the people who voted against it? Common sense tells me they have to be gay.
September 3rd, 2014 @ 12:53 pm
Mr Jackson: When O promotes this, then, the court(s) most generally rule in (his) favor!
That’s the connection!
September 3rd, 2014 @ 1:18 pm
So I’m taking from the comments above that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution you all claim to love so much either means nothing or it means it only applies to groups or people you approve of it to apply to.
Interesting indeed.
Although Dr. Taitz did not reply to my earlier question re the EPC.
September 3rd, 2014 @ 2:53 pm
no. equal protection is applied. If the state has a definition that a marriage is a union between one man and one woman, everyone is entitled to such marriage. If, say, a man states that he is a Mormon or he is a Muslim and wants to marry 2 or 4 and xyz number of women, he would not be allowed to do so.
If the law states that the age of consent for marriage is 18, everyone can get married provided they are over 18.
If one says that he wants to marry another man, he will be able to do it only in a state, which defines marriage differently or it would be a civil union and not a marriage. Another option, is to bring a new proposal for a vote of the people and lobby to pass it, as it was done in NY or MA
I am very consistent in what I am saying.
September 3rd, 2014 @ 3:07 pm
The public and the courts support gay marriage so it’s pretty much a done deal.
In ten years it won’t seem foreign.
September 3rd, 2014 @ 3:56 pm
This guy is just being a nuisance. He knows all this. Typical liberal hack!
September 3rd, 2014 @ 4:14 pm
Thank you for the response and explanation, Dr. Taitz.
Yes, you are very consistent in what you state. I have no disagreement there.
September 3rd, 2014 @ 4:32 pm
Someday, maybe when you grow up, you can go to a real law school. You know, the kind that has bricks a mortar and real law professors. Studying at Taft Law and Stuff is most likely the reason you aren’t capable of winning any lawsuits – even those against tenants that break a lease.
September 3rd, 2014 @ 5:01 pm
but, of course, you disagree with me on every issue and in this you are consistent as well
September 3rd, 2014 @ 5:04 pm
maybe in 10 years it will be normal. At this point 31 states have ban on gay marriage and the change, if any, should come from the people voting for change, not by judges, who spit in the face of the majority of people. When the social change is forced on people, people end up revolting
September 3rd, 2014 @ 5:06 pm
actually i won a $290,000 judgment against the tenants represented by am experienced attorney. Later the tenants filed for bankruptcy, which is out of my control, but the I succeeded as an attorney in the case and a number of other cases.. attacking me would not change the facts
September 3rd, 2014 @ 5:35 pm
Anybody who comes on here trying to defend gay marriage is a pervert himself.
September 3rd, 2014 @ 6:15 pm
The big problem with this inversion/perversion of reality is that civil unions do not effectively work totally. Debatable.
Balto Sun noted recently that you can get only 400-500 benefits and tax breaks with a same sex civil union. (In most states)
But, unfortunately, you can get 1100-1200 ben-
efits and tax breaks, if you call it a “marriage”, same sex marriage, etc., (in most
states).
I do not support this entity or idea, but
realistically, you can see why the gay lobby
and leftists did this, for material and sexual
convenience. Plus Obot’s pandering.
I still do not support. But I am afraid that
the US SCOTUS will make this all soon, mandatory in all states and terrtories.
What can we do, Danno???
September 3rd, 2014 @ 6:29 pm
Marriage for gays has to be uniform throughout the country because of:
1. Federal taxes
2. People serving in the military
3. Denying gays the right to marry is immoral
September 3rd, 2014 @ 7:12 pm
“Homosexual marriage” (a part of the Agenda) is an oxymoron pushed by the sexually obsessed perverts over the 98% sane population. See the structured arguments here:
https://JudeoChristianAmerica.org/Prop8TalkPoints.htm
September 3rd, 2014 @ 9:28 pm
FYI Orly, Mormons, or the LDS church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), hasn’t sanctioned polygamy since 1890. That would be the FLDS church. The FLDS church is a separate religion from the LDS church.
https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/official-declarations/official-declaration-1-manifesto?lang=eng
Sincerely,
from a Mormon
September 3rd, 2014 @ 10:17 pm
Poster # 19, “Denying gays the right to marry is immoral??!!” I know you are only here to stir people up. The thing about it though is that is really how a lot of the Commies/Democrats think about it. It’s not the perverts, it’s us who are immoral! That’s their game.
September 4th, 2014 @ 12:51 pm
Certainly not a liberal (Posner) and yet, citing the equal protection clause (but certainly read differently than you do, Dr. Taitz)
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday overturned same-sex marriage bans in Wisconsin and Indiana.
“The discrimination against same-sex couples is irrational, and therefore unconstitutional even if the discrimination is not subjected to heightened scrutiny, which is why we can largely elide the more complex analysis found in more closely balanced equal-protection cases,” Judge Richard Posner wrote for the Court.
The ruling makes it the third appeals court to conclude that state prohibitions on gay marriage violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.
He added: “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.”
September 4th, 2014 @ 1:18 pm
do you have full opinions of both Posner and Feldman?
To me this opinion by Posner makes no sense what so ever. The society has a right to define what a society is, what are the social institutions. Marriage and family is a basic unit of the society. The society defined a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. What if a person today is a man, a year from now he wants to change sex and be a woman and later wants to be a man. Will the society be obligated to accept all of his marriages back and forth, as a man and as a woman? Will we, the tax payers, pay for all of the sex change operations and surrogates. At which point can a society say: enough is enough?
September 4th, 2014 @ 2:54 pm
Here is a link to Judge Feldman’s opinion. http://www.scribd.com/doc/238545883/LA-marriage-case
I’ve yet to find a link to Posner’s, which was a unanimous opinion, but when I do I’ll post it.
The reason it makes no sense to you is that, by your statements above, you clearly do not understand the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
You also need to read Loving v Virginia, although it’s a landmark case and taught at every law school in the country and you should be familiar with it.
“Society decided” these issues long ago. It’s called the Constitution. As with other things in the Constitution (such as blacks not being able to vote or women not being able to vote or blacks not being allowed to ride in the front seat of a bus or sit at the same lunch counter with whites and a myriad of other instances, it took a while for the courts to say enough and this is unconstitutional. They are finally reaching the same decision on this issue.
By the way, the arguments you make above in this thread have been rejected by almost every court to hear the issue. Rightly or wrongly. But that is the case, nonetheless.
I’ll continue to look for the full Posner opinion, which apparently has not been published as of yet.
September 4th, 2014 @ 2:57 pm
As promised, here is a link to the unanimous opinion written by Posner…
http://www.scribd.com/doc/238545883/LA-marriage-case
September 4th, 2014 @ 3:01 pm
where is Feldman’s opinion? what is the case number or caption in the case ruled upon by Feldman?
PS you did not answer the questions I posed
September 4th, 2014 @ 3:10 pm
JONATHAN P. ROBICHEAUX, ET AL.CIVIL ACTIONv.NO. 13-5090 C/WNO. 14-97 & NO. 14-327 JAMES D. CALDWELL, SECTION “F”LOUISIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL
September 4th, 2014 @ 3:30 pm
there is a big difference between women and blacks being denied the right to vote and gay cases. Gay couples are not prevented to do, what everybody else does, namely marry a person of an opposite sex. They are not deprived. They want something extra, something above and beyond of what everyone gets, namely a right to marry a person of the same sex aside from the right to marry opposite sex. Take the mayor of NY, De Blasio. His wife was known as a lesbian until she married De Blasio. When she was asked about it, she said that she was a lesbian until she met De Blasio, the love of her life. These types of case cause the public to pause, as the public does not believe that people are born gay or lesbian, majority of citizens of this country believe that this might be a psychological problem, a choice, which clearly can be allowed as a civil union, but majority of the citizens of the country in majority of the states do not believe this to be a marriage and are not willing to grant extra rights to these individuals. This is not an issue of equal rights, this is an issue of extra rights
September 4th, 2014 @ 4:08 pm
Oh, yeah…Orly gave another lesson to Pauly!
And those who think it’s better to attend the left-wing schools of law, think here now…what happened to O’s license? His wifes’ license?
All that glitters is not gold! And Orly has done an excellent job of working as a lawyer, in her (5th) language!
Can any of these lefties say they have this much talent to do what’s right?
No freakin’ way!!
September 4th, 2014 @ 6:57 pm
So all of these states’ laws banning marriages between a black and a white should still be valid, because after all, society should get to decide.
Arizona
(1912)
California
(1850)
Colorado
(1876)
Idaho
(1890)
Indiana
(1816)
Maryland
(1788)
Montana
(1889)
Nebraska
(1867)
Nevada
(1864)
North Dakota
(1889)
Oregon
(1859)
South Dakota
(1889)
Utah
(1896)
Wyoming
(1890)
Alabama
(1819)
Arkansas
(1836)
Delaware
(1787)
Florida
(1845)
Georgia
(1788)
Kentucky
(1792)
Louisiana
(1812)
Mississippi
(1817)
Missouri
(1821)
North Carolina
(1789)
Oklahoma
(1907)
South Carolina
(1788)
Texas
(1845)
Tennessee
(1796)
Virginia
(1788)
West Virginia
(1863)
September 4th, 2014 @ 7:11 pm
It’s all about attempting to destroy the moral fabric of America. All the word games and prior legal case action is all a big ruse. It has been one of the Communists goals to destroy America from within. They have been at it for 60 years now. Making a mockery of traditional marriage in this country is part of their agenda.
September 5th, 2014 @ 3:57 am
“Gay couples are not prevented to do, what everybody else does, namely marry a person of an opposite sex. They are not deprived. They want something extra, something above and beyond of what everyone gets, namely a right to marry a person of the same sex aside from the right to marry opposite sex. ”
That is a specious argument, at best. Gays are indeed denied what heterosexuals enjoy and that is to marry the person they love and wish to spend their lives with. They are not (in most states) allowed to enjoy the same benefits of a marriage that heterosexuals do, just as blacks were not able (in many states at one time) to marry the person they loved and wished to spend their lives with if that person were white.
Tradition per say has not negative or positive significance. There are good traditions and bad traditions. Tradition per se therefore can not be lawful grounds for discrimination.
Minorities trampled on by the democratic process have recourse to the courts, that recourse is call constitutional law.
September 5th, 2014 @ 7:38 am
the judge posed a reasonable question: what about people who love minors, such as 17 year old or 15 year old, ones that love their brothers or first cousins or love more than one woman?
For thousands of years societies set rules, what is allowed and not allowed. the state reasonably argued that a major change in the society, such as this, needs to come from a democratic process, from elections, such as it happened in NY and Vermont.
I believe that Judge Feldman, just as I am not antigay, we both simply believe that such major changes in the fabric of the society have to come from a democratic process.
Also, I do not know of any reason society would have in opposing mixed race families, while in the same sex marriages there is an issue of gay couples not being able to conceive their own children and the society is not prepared to carry the burden of paying for surrogates to carry children for gay couples. Also, legalizing gay marriage might lead to legalizing marriages of transgender and the need for the state to cover sex change operations and the people are not willing to pay for it. These expenses might be enormous. I know a family, where their daughter wanted a sex change operation. The parents had to mortgage their house. After a few years the girl could no longer take the hormonal treatment. She is not here not there. The family is devastated both emotionally and financially. The society in majority of states is not ready for such social experiments.
vhat say you?
September 5th, 2014 @ 8:10 am
Howard, silly boy.
Blackness and gayness are two different and almost exclusive items by birth and devel-
opment.
Do not confuse apples and oranges.
Do not insult black Afro-American citizens.
Octopus is NOT herring. Analogy is flawed.
Sorry. No way!
Tell him, Danno!!!
September 5th, 2014 @ 10:57 am
JS/JS: Putting aside the fact that science generally accepts that sexual orientation is determined genetically, just as is race, rather than, a matter of behavior, then I assume you would be fine with laws forbidding inter-religion marriages.
After all, religious beliefs are not a matter of genetics.
September 5th, 2014 @ 11:06 am
there is no scientific evidence of homosexuality being genetic, nobody ever identified gay gene.
if there was one, we would not see Anne Heche and Bill de Balsio’s wife changing orientation from being lesbian to bing straight
September 5th, 2014 @ 4:08 pm
Dr. Taitz:
See page 10 Of Judge Posner’s opinion, quoted in part below. But then he is one of those “liberal” judges appointed by that ultra-liberal President Reagan.
The leading scientific theories of the causes of homosexuality are genetic and neuroendocrine theories, the latter being theories that sexual orientation is shaped by a fetus’s exposure to certain hormones . See, e.g . , J. Michael Bailey, “Biological Perspectives on Sexual Orientation,” in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identities Over the Lifespan: Psychological Perspectives 102 – 30 (Anthony R. D’Augelli and Charlotte J. Patterson eds. 1995); Barbara L. Frankowski, “ Sexual Orientation and Adolescents , ” 113 Pediatrics 1827 , 1828 (2004). Although it seems paradoxical to suggest that homosexuality could have a genetic origin, given that homosexual sex is non – procreative, homosexuality may, like menopause , by reducing procreation by some members of society free them to provide child – caring assistance to their procreative relatives, thus increasing the survival and hence procreative prospects of these relatives. This is called the “kin selection hypothesis” or the “helper in the nest theory . ” See, e.g., Association for Psychological Science, ”Study Reveals Potential Evolutionary Role for Same – Sex Attraction,” Feb. 4, 2010, http://www.psychological science. org/ media /releases/2010/vasey. There are other genetic theories of such attraction as well. See, e.g., Nathan W. Bailey and Marlene Zuk, “Same – Sex Sexual Behavior and Evolution,” forthcoming in Trends in Ecology and Evolution , http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~mzuk/ Bailey%20and%20Zuk%202009%20Same%20sex% 20behaviour. pdf. For a responsible popular treatment of the subject see William Kremer, “The Evolutionary Puzzle of Homosexuality,” BBC News Magazine , Feb. 17, 2014 , www. bbc .com/news/magazine – 26089486 .
September 6th, 2014 @ 7:15 am
this is a total and complete nonsense and most of these studies were done by people who are gay and lesbian themselves or closet gay and lesbian. If this would be genetic or due to fetuses exposure to certain hormones, then twins will be either both gay or both straight and it is not happening.The facts contradict all of these garbage theories.
Furthermore, if it is evolutionary and the evolutionary trend for people not to have children and be helpers to other procreating relatives, such as “helper in the nest theory” or “kin selection hypothesis”, then they should not be married according to these garbage theories, they should be just helpers and his is nonsense. If Posner truly believes in this garbage and I do not believe that any judge can be dumb enough to believe in this garbage, then it means that people who are gay should not be married.
Moreover, these are all theories, non of which were proven. Theories are not facts. Most of the citizens of the majority of states are saying that they are not willing to change the fabric of the society, the building blocks of the society based on unproven theories. Judges like Posner replace the democratic process with their personal of the wall ideas or their preferences due to their personal sexual orientation, be it open or closet. These judges are simply lawless and show no respect to the will of the people, to elections process, separation of powers and the rights of the states.
After all if not for our lawless judges, would a foreign charlatan with a stolen Social security number and toilet paper for IDs sit in the WH as our president? Of course not.
September 6th, 2014 @ 1:41 pm
Dr. Taitz:
First, what is your proof that these researchers were gay, etc.? Or do you just believe that anyone who reaches those conclusions must be gay and therefore must be prejudiced?
Also, I didn’t realize you were an expert in psychology, biology or genetics. Please let me know what advanced degrees you have in those areas. As to your discussion of twins, you really need to do some research before you spout off. Although it is true that “identical” twins do share many characteristics, they are not clones of each other.
September 6th, 2014 @ 2:44 pm
you do not have to be an expert to read a study. I do not have time for quotation, however there were twins studies in US, europe and Australia, all showed no genetic predisposition to becoming gay or lesbian.