A federal judge bucked the trend Wednesday by ruling that Louisiana’s gay marriage ban is constitutional, arguing that a right to same-sex marriage is not “so entrenched as to be fundamental” and arguing that the state’s rationale for the ban is “credible” and “convincing.”
The ruling is the first time a federal court has upheld a gay marriage ban since the Supreme Court struck down the federal law defining marriage as between a man and woman in June 2013.
U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman, a Reagan appointee, highlighted wrote an opinion that is, as Allahpundit describes, “a mix of deference to federalism, judicial modesty absent guiding precedent, and warnings of a slippery slope.”
Feldman frames the issue of same-sex marriage as an argument between the "democratic process" and a "lifestyle choice," and rules that unless sexual orientation is necessarily a "suspect class" under the Equal Protection Clause, judges should defer to democratically conceived laws.
Feldman acknowledged that he was breaking the “near-unanimity” of his fellow judges, but argued that he did not have confidence that other recent rulings provided a “correct guide”:
“It would no doubt be celebrated to be in the company of the near-unanimity of the many other federal courts that have spoken to this pressing issue, if this Court were confident in the belief that those cases provide a correct guide.”
Feldman’s central argument is that Louisiana’s gay marriage ban threatened no “fundamental right,” writing,
"Public attitude might be becoming more diverse, but any right to same-sex marriage is not yet so entrenched as to be fundamental.”
He also rejected the idea that sexual orientation involved a suspect class, which would require heightened or special scrutiny. Such a determination, he states, must be left to the Supreme Court. Without the “suspect class” special consideration, the state’s ban needed to only demonstrate a rational basis to be upheld because federal judges should defer to state’s determinations in such cases.
The state’s argument for the ban—that marriage is designed to encourage procreation and child-rearing of parents of different genders—he concluded was not something he should override, suggesting slippery slope consequences to imprecise definitions of marriage, and ultimately deeming the state’s rationale both “credible” and “convincing.”
Here's part of Feldman's discussion of the slippery slope of loose definitions of marriage (via HotAir):
Excerpt from Feldman's defense of Louisana's rationale and "respect to the democratic process":
Here is the complete ruling.
