Federal judge swims upstream: No constitutional right to gay 'marriage'
A federal judge and his court decision have given new hope that traditional marriage will survive legal attacks by homosexual activists and sympathetic judges.
U.S. District Court Judge Juan Perez-Gimenez, in fact, suggested that other judges have taken liberty with the Windsor decision that was used by the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act.
Reading from the judge's rule, Ryan Anderson of The Heritage Foundation pulled out the following quote in a Daily Signal story:
The Windsor opinion did not create a fundamental right to same gender marriage nor did it establish that state opposite-gender marriage regulations are amenable to federal constitutional challenges. If anything, Windsor stands for the opposite proposition: it reaffirms the Statesâ€™ authority over marriage, buttressing Bakerâ€™s conclusion that marriage is simply not a federal question....
"He seems to be the exception that proves the rule," in more ways than one. Just looking at his name and his location you would think he's Catholic. Oh, and he was also appointed by the Democrats, but seems to me we have had a thread on SA where His Unholiness Franny, wants to get into bed with queers. But perhaps, Franny is being two-faced with liberals also. It is said that he said, "same-sex marriage is an â€˜anthropological regressionâ€™" which is quite true by the way. Oh, that quotation came from, [URL=http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Pope_Francis]]]http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Pope_Francis[/URL] an entertaining for a religious conservative such as myself. So, perhaps this judge is actually reading through Franny's political maneuverings?
By the way, John Y., make a [URL=http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/bart.htm]]]Pilgrimage From Rome[/URL]
Good for that federal judge. At least one federal judge is not insane and not violating the United States Constitution which states that the federal government has no say in the laws that states enact.