Federal Judge Rules Against Same-Sex Couple In Puerto Rico, Dismisses Case

Thank you. I agree. Unfortunately, Baker is still hanging out there and is still used by some to try to thwart the advance of gay rights. It's a real pain, like a bad cold that won't go away.

 

Thanks to those who made an effort to address the questions that I posed:

• Did the first circuit court properly invoke Baker?
• Could Perez-Gimenez have ruled in favor of the same sex couples despite the circuit court’s opinion?
• What will the first circuit do on appeal?
• Does Baker still control under any circumstances. ?

Here is my answer to the first one-_________________________________________________________________________
Did the first circuit court properly invoke Baker?

At the outset the circuit court states :

However, in the end they cited three decisions that did not adopt some new category of suspect classification or employ rational basis review in its minimalist form; instead, the Court rested on the case-specific nature of the discrepant treatment, the burden imposed, and the infirmities of the justifications offered.( Pg. 16 and 17 of the opinion.) Obviously this is not a court that is hostile to gay rights. It appears that they could have reached the same result by not invoking Baker. Furthermore, there are questions as to whether or not Baker was relevant to this case ( If it is even relevant at all)

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/first-circuit-opinion-in-massachusetts-v-54501/

A link to the Baker case appears below. However the facts of the case are unimportant save for the fact that unlike the DOMA case, it had to do specifically with same sex marriage. What is important is what SCOTUS did with it, which was to dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question."

In most cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court's refusal to hear the case is not an endorsement of the decision below. However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.[As binding precedent, the Baker decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Court necessarily adjudicated in dismissing the case.

When dealing with precedents like Baker, lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions.The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions

• The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.
• The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.
• Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.
• Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

It’s not hard to see how none of these criteria apply to the first circuit DOMA case. It is also worthy of not that when SCOTUS subsequently ruled to invalidate section 3 of DOMA, they did so by invoking the 5th amendment’s due process clause. Like the first circuit, they did not elevate gays to the status of a suspect class, nor did they find that a fundamental right was being violated, nor did they invoke Baker.

http://scarinciattorney.com/baker-v-nelson-the-often-forgotten-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-case/

Lastly, Almost every federal court decision on DOMA has pushed Baker v. Nelson aside and yet the Congressional Republicans defending DOMA now keep coming back with it. It is a losing argument and the Second Circuit offered us the best explanation to date: Baker refers to state law, the legalization of marriages in the first place, not the federal laws that are triggered when a valid marriage happens at the state level. Plus, Baker is outdated: it was from a time long before gay Americans were liberated from the status of enemies of the law.

 

The second question that I posed was Could Perez-Gimenez have ruled in favor of same sex marriage despite the circuit court’s opinion?


In addition to invoking Baker, Perez-Gimenez , resorted to a strong dose of an appeal to tradition that included a reference to Scalia’s dissenting opinion in DOMA:

“Recent affirmances of same-gender marriage seem to suffer from a peculiar inability to recall the principles embodied in existing marriage law. Traditional marriage is “exclusively [an] opposite-sex institution . . . inextricably linked to procreation and biological kinship,” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2718 (Alito, J., dissenting). Traditional marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order. And ultimately the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage. Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries. The question now is whether judicial
“wisdom” may contrive methods by which those solid principles can be circumvented…..“
discarded.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...me_sex_marriage_in_puerto_rico_dismisses_case
He also raised the specter of a slippery slope to polygamy and incest. One the has to wonder, to what extent did he want to find that there is no right to same sex marriage, vs. having no choice as he claimed. I contend that he could have ignored Baker if he want to, like so many other federal judges have, albeit, not in the first circuit.

I would say that his hands were not tied by Baker. He just wanted a reason to rule as he did

 

I believe some forms of legal frivolity are Institutional in nature and not Individual. It is why our Founding Fathers were wise with our federal Constitution and ratified by the several States. Article 4, Section 2 is a rational choice of law in any conflict of laws.

 

Let me answer the last question first. The Obama Administration.

Obama hates Catholics and that is no secret. This is not the first time he's gone after the Church. All these actions are unheard of. Liberals and this administration have no respect for the Constitution and civil rights particularly the Bill of Rights.

Let me show you something, it's called the First Amendment to the Constitution and it guarantees the right to freedom OF religion:

The administration and their liberal friends in the gay community are intentionally targeting Christians. If the baker or photographer or the owner of a chapel have religious objections to performing these fraudulent gay weddings, the stupid gays should find someone else to do business with instead of suing and forcing them out of business. Being gay is not like being black. A black person doesn't do something which makes him black. He is born that way.

There is no right to be homosexual in the Constitution.

 

You said please focus on the legal issues. I did. You just don't like my point of view and want me to shut up I guess.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. As a legal issue, for over two hundred years marriage in this country has been between one man and one woman. Now somebody has found some unwritten text deep in the 14th Amendment that was intended for post civil war slaves that gay people have rights and one of them is to get married. I'm sick of it. Being gay does not put you in some protected class of people deserving of special legal consideration. Since when did standing by you beliefs become "perpetuate discrimination"? It's nonsense to believe that for over 200 years, gays were discriminated against and nobody even knew! It's equally ridiculous to claim civil rights based on rights that nobody noticed was in the Constitution for over 200 years.

There are people like me that realize that being gay is not a right, it is a mental disorder. Being religious is a right. It's been a long held belief for thousands of years that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination. You can't force others to believe otherwise, unless you want an oppressive dictatorship.

And that is the direction we are headed in. Persecuting Christians because they will not bow to the gay agenda.

Now, you may not like my post, but you can't tell me what I can and can't post. I am addressing the legal issues as I see fit. If you don't like it don't respond. Mod edit...flounder

 

You're right. I don't like your point of view. This is nothing more than a paranoid, homophobic, bigoted insane rant. Go now!

 

More hateful equine excrement! You're just making crap up, trolling and flam baiting. There are rules about that. Stop poisoning my thread. There are people here who want to have an intelligent discussion on the topic.

 

The appeal process is already underway. The outcome is hard to predict because no other case involving gay rights, besides DOMA, has reached the first circuits The other four jurisdictions in the circuit have legal same sex marriage either by legislation, referendum, or, in the case of Massachusetts, by the state supreme court which was never challenged in federal court. The fact that we don’t know what their current thinking on Baker is further complicates any prediction. They may invoke it again in which case they will have to uphold the lower court setting up a circuit split that will be sure to land on SCOTUS doorstep. However, they are known to be a liberal court

 

So, if the first circuit chooses to uphold the Puerto Rico decision, so be it. I believe that SCOTUS will do the right thing. What do you think?

 

Puerto Rico is a weird one for sure, when I visited there, all the houses had bars on their windows, the resorts were great, but would not want to live there

 

Bigotry means you hate people who don't agree with their religious beliefs, not the other way around. Gays and their agenda is purposefully targeting Christians. That is the real bigotry.

 

You are the one who is not responding to the subject of the topic. Just because you don't agree with my point of view does not mean it is trolling or flame bating. If you don't want to respond to my points, then don't respond at all.

 

Seriously? I raised interesting and important legal issues about the Puerto Rico decision, offered my opinion and tried to encourage some academic discussion about it. YOU go off on a tangent about Obama hating Catholics, about homosexuality being a mental disease, and generally attempted to derail the thread and demean gay people who you, obviously do not even consider human beings . But it is I who is off topic? Think about what you are saying if you even can. You are now ignored, and reported. I'm not going to get sucked into this sort of BOVINE EXCREMENT.

 

I did comment on the Puerto Rico decision. None of this stuff belongs in the courts at all because there is on right for a man to marry a man in the Constitution. There never has been and unless you amend the Constitution the judges should rule as they did in the Puerto Rico case. Gay marriage is proving to be a violation of American's right to freedom of religion and Puerto Rico is heavily Catholic, so I gave examples as to how this administration is violating this 1st Amendment right. Get it?

 

Your religion does not get to dictate others rights, we do not live in a theocracy.
As for your view that no one even realized that gays were discriminated against; the gays knew, their families knew; feel free to look up the stonewall riots. Gay people once hid in the closet isolated from not only from their families but from society because of bigoted beliefs that homosexuality was a disease or a mental disorder. Thankfully that era has ended, this is why the christofacists are losing their minds - people are seeing their best friend is gay, their sibling, their doctor, the next door neighbor.

Homosexuality existed long before the introduction on religion, it was widely accepted in the ancient world before the church stepped in to push their version of morality.

Flat out lie, it has nothing to do with religious beliefs. I know its hard to tell the difference between fairy tails and reality... Try again, feel free to pick up a dictionary

 

No I don't "get it"

1. there is no right for a man to marry a woman in the constitution either. Nothing about marriage at all.

2. The role of the courts is to step in when congress or state law makers fail to protect people rights under the due process and equal protection provisions of the constitution

3. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. It means that people of all faiths, or no faith at all have the same freedoms. Freedom of religion means that you can believe as you wish, practice your faith as you wish and live your life according to those beliefs. It does not mean that you CAN DICTATE WHAT OTHERS BELIEVE OR HOW THEY SHOULD LIVE THEIR LIVES.

4. Gay marriage DOES NOT violate your freedom of religion but denying same sex marriage based on YOUR religious beliefs does violate gay peoples rights under the first amendment.

5. This is a constitutional republic. The fact that Puerto Rico is "heavily Catholic" doesn't mean squat. If you want to live in a country where the laws are based on religious beliefs, if you want to live in a theocracy, try Uganda.

6. Gay people are human beings who just want to live their lives with the same freedoms and rights that you have. They have jobs, they have children, they pay their bills and taxes- sometimes with difficulty just like others-and they contribute to the community. THEY ARE REAL PEOPLE!

7. If there really is a Jesus Christ and a heaven and a hell, you might be in for a rude awakening when-on judgment day, you discover that your god did not intent for you to be hateful and cruel and will in fact punish you for it.

Is there anything here that you are too obtuse to understand? I'm finished with you. You have done enough damage to my thread already. Go away now.

 

I didn't say there was. Marriage has always been defined as a union of one man and one woman and it still is. Words mean things. You can't just change the meaning of a word just because you feel like it. It has also been defined as such in law for many decades. Utah had to agree to that definition before they were allowed statehood because of polygamy.

They are not being denied a right. Many gay men have gotten married before now. So it is not being denied them, the people have decided in state after state that the definition of a marriage is between one man and one woman.

When people are being forced to choose between their religious beliefs or their right to conduct a business that is religious persecution. Sure you have the right not to follow a religion. No gays are being forced to follow a religion and as far as I know, nobody has ever said that a religion is being forced on them.

There is no such thing as same sex marriage because marriage is between one man and one woman.

Well it couldn't be more obvious that you are a bigot and have no respect for people of faith or their right to practice it. This country was founded on freedom of religion. Nobody is proposing we have a theocracy. That's just another ignorant strawman.

No duh. Nobody say gay people are not people. I'm glad that you brought up children though because that brings us to another point that children are being systematically denied the right to a mother and a father. That is truly and injustice.

I am not being hateful or cruel. I'm presenting facts.

Look who's talking. I don't take orders from the likes of you. As long as you want to post your crap, I'll be here to present the truth.

 

Just one more thing. Your profile says that you are a male but your avatar is that of a seductive woman. That indicates to me that you have some gender identity and /or sexual orientation issues. Am I right? That is often the case with people who are so rabidly anti gay and overtly bigoted as yourself.

 

How very politically correct of you to call me queer.

 

Most homophobic people are.

 

Marriage is whatever society says it is. Today same sex marriage exists, legally, in 32 States. Soon it will be all 50. And 40 years from now, people who think as you do will be viewed with the same negativity as we know view those who defended slavery. It's over. You've lost. Deal with it.

 

I didn't call you anything. I just asked a question. However, the fact that you take it that way further indicates to me that you are struggling with some issue about sexuality.

 

So using an appeal to tradition is your evidence that SSM is wrong.
Slavery was also defined in law for many decades, does that fact mean that slavery is 'ok'
The meaning of words changes all the time, eg. gay used to mean happy and carefree, now it also means something else, just as marriage used to mean between a man and woman now it also means between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Funny how you accept the changing of some words but not others, it's called selective reasoning.

Guess what no matter the popular vote it doesn't over rule your constitution, unless the USA became a mob rule society when no one was looking.

In that case people with these types of archaic beliefs should either form a church or run their business as a private club, while they are in the business of supplying a service or goods to the general public they CANNOT refuse to offer a service or goods to a group of people that they offer to others REGARDLESS of their religious beliefs, to do so is discrimination, no different to the time when blacks were not allowed into certain business establishments.

Using the appeal to tradition again I see, what was does not automatically mean it is true and right, if that were the case slavery would still be legal and raping your wife would still be legal.

Your right to practice what ever religion you want to or even no religion at all ENDS the moment that it infringes on other peoples rights. No church is being forced to perform SSM, not a single one.

Well you are saying gays are not people, or at least not people deserving of equal treatment under the law, as to your children remark please show me anywhere the right of children to a mother and father is recorded as a legal fact. If it were then all those single mothers and fathers are breaking that law .. you also ignore the fact that a law cannot be made that causes children to suffer due to the actions of their parents, outlawing SSM would cause the children of the same sex couple to suffer, which has already been shown in court cases including a supreme court ruling.

Punishing children for matters beyond their control is patently impermissible as a matter of Supreme Court precedent regarding the constitutional rights of children. In the first of these cases, ( Levy vs Louisiana - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...1/68/case.html ) the court considered a Louisiana law that forbade children born out of wedlock from receiving benefits upon the wrongful death of their mother. Louisiana argued that the law was a perfectly legitimate means of expressing moral disapproval of extramarital liaisons. The Supreme Court, however, determined that the law violated equal protection because it is fundamentally unfair and irrational for a state to deny important benefits to children merely to express moral disapproval of the conduct of adults—or to incentivize adults to behave in a particular way.

In a similar case decided several years later, ( Weber v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../164/case.html ) the court addressed another Louisiana statute that intentionally disadvantaged children born out of wedlock. Specifically, the law at issue preferred “legitimate” children to “illegitimate” children in distributing worker’s compensation benefits upon the death of a parent. The court invalidated the statute, holding that, under the equal protection clause, both classes of children must be permitted to recover equally. “No child,” the court wrote, “is responsible for his birth and penalizing the illegitimate child is an ineffectual—as well as unjust—way of deterring the parent.”

In yet another case ( Plyler v. Doe - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../202/case.html ) decided a decade later, the court relied on the same logic in holding that states could not constitutionally deny public education to undocumented immigrant children in an effort to discourage their parents from entering the country illegally. The constitutional conclusion from this line of cases is clear: No matter how reprehensible a state finds certain adult conduct, it cannot curb that conduct through laws that punish children.

The parallels between the laws struck down in these cases and bans against same-sex marriage are unavoidable. States that ban gay marriage once argued that they did so in order to condemn homosexuality; today, they argue that gay marriage must be forbidden in order to somehow incentivize straight marriage. No matter the rationale, the effect of these laws is clear: Gay marriage bans deny the children of same-sex couples critical benefits, both economically and psychologically. Even if one believes that gay marriage bans are a justifiable effort to control the conduct of adults, it is simply unconstitutional to punish children based on that belief.

not a single thing you have posted is a fact.

I'm sure we would all be happier if you actually started presenting the "truth", let me know when it happens.

 

and how typical of you to misrepresent the comment.