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

It just keeps getting more and more interesting! On 10.22.14 a federal judge sitting in Puerto ruled that the commonwealth was within its constitutional rights to ban same sex marriage. This is only the second federal judge to do so amidst numerous rulings striking down the bans. I have to wonder why none of the anti-gay marriage folks have jumped on this with glee. I thought that I would be hearing a lot of joyful howling by now.

SCOTUSBLOG reported the following which included a link to the full opinion:

Yes it’s true, the first circuit cited Baker in its ruling that found DOMA unconstitutional prior to the landmark SCOTUS ruling. But that raises more questions than it answers:

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

I certainly have my ideas on these questions. I would like to hear yours. Please focus on the legal issues. Trolls and flame baiters will be ignored

 

He cites Baker as binding precedent. Seems kind of odd, considering the Supreme Court has just dismissed a ruling which ALLOWED same-sex marriage.

As other judges have correctly pointed out, "doctrinal developments" change the whole game.

 

As expected, this ruling in Puerto Rico will be appealed.

http://equalityontrial.com/2014/10/21/challenge-puerto-rico-sex-marriage-ban-dismissed/

 

It will go to the First Circuit, which ruled against DOMA and is "dem-controlled" by a 3-1 margin.

So it probably won't be long until 5 appellate courts agree and Puerto Rico has to marry gays.

 

And that would be a good thing, finally in Puerto Rico.

By the way, your country of England has legal same-sex marriage doesn't it?

 

My country is the UK but yes, we do! Passed by an overwhelming majority of Parliament. However, marriage is a devolved issue - so currently only three parts of the UK have it - England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland is dominated by conservative Protestants, and has voted against it three times now. But they're being taken to court over it.

 

Well at least the British are light years ahead of the Americans as far as that goes. We need same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states, but we're getting there. By the way, has Queen Elizabeth "friended" you on her social account yet?

 

Hahaha, I did get asked once by an American if I knew the Queen, and I'm pretty convinced it was a serious question.... lol

Queen Elizabeth signed the bill into law by the way. Interesting because she's also the "Supreme Governor" of the Church of England, who oppose SSM.

 

Baker is totally irrelevant today. When it passed, it was mandatory for the Supreme Court to hear most cases on appeal. The decision in Baker v. Nelson was a summary decision of one line, basically saying same-sex marriage was not a legal question to be bothered with. In the 1980s, Reagan got rid of virtually all such mandatory jurisdiction laws. Had they still existed today, the dismissal of the cases from the circuits today (which have legalized same sex marriage in several states) would have had the same binding precedent effect.

The only reason Baker was ever precedent is because of laws forcing the court to review decisions. Those laws no longer exist. Additionally, the court has implicitly struck down same-sex marriage bans through its most recent dismissal, a complete reversal of what it did in Baker. Third, DOMA had language seriously suggesting same-sex couples had the right to marry--it was not explicit, but it sure laid the groundwork. Given these three factors, it is very hard to give Baker any serious weight.

 

Puerto Rico is not a state, it is a territory.

Therefore it is NOT beholden to the constitution or scotus or the SC.

 

I'm not even American, and that is pure unadulterated nonsense.

PR is in the First Circuit, therefore the US Constitution applies.

Seriously, not to sound smug, but please do your homework before chiming in and making yourself look foolish.

 

Grow up and stop being childish.

 

Hee is right. Puerto Rico is subject to the constitution.

That's a fact.

 

Thanks, but chill. He's a troll.

 

I know, but he is a fun one.

 

There are fewer and fewer honest judges on the bench these days. It's shameful that a few years ago, gays and liberals were saying it was up to each state to decide. And after having been rejected time and time again by voters, they take to the court to force their will over that of the people. I think that the recent persecutions of Christians is going to result in a major backlash against homosexuals and their agenda.

 

what Christians have been persecuted?

 

The owners of Hobby Lobby
The Little Sisters of the Poor
The ministers who own the wedding chapel.
The owners of the bakery.
The photographer.

I'm sure there are more that I haven't heard about.

Is playing dumb your only strategy?

 

That is not correct. "Under the Jurisdiction" does not mean "state".

8 U.S. Code § 1402.

All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899, and prior to January 13, 1941, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, residing on January 13, 1941, in Puerto Rico or other territory over which the United States exercises rights of sovereignty and not citizens of the United States under any other Act, are declared to be citizens of the United States as of January 13, 1941. All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth.

 

Obamacare did not single out HL or the Sisters of the Poor. HL and SotP appealed the general law and won their appeal. No one set out to persecute HL or SotP.

The same with anti-discrimination laws. They were written for all business. Persecution is when a law is written for a specific group. Persecution is when you single out a specific group.

The photographer and Baker chose to exclude a specific group in their business.

Who was doing the persecuting?

 

they weren't persecuted because they were Christian

 

don't go talking sense now

 

Bovine excrement! If that were true, why does it have a federal district court, and why is it part of the first circuit? Do you understand anything about how things work?

 

I asked that posters stick to a discussion of the law. What part of that did you not understand? This is just a free association, random, nonsensical pile of word salad that I doubt you can actually explain or back up. You're obviously just another troll who shows how little you understand about how a constitutional republic works when you invoke the will of the people. You also are showing how out of touch with reality you are by thinking that "the will of the people" is to perpetuate discrimination. And Christian persecution? Seriously? Maybe in Pakistan....not here!

 

Well, the judge in PR was just looking for a reason to do what he did. He obviously has an anti gay agenda. The question is, what the hell was the first circuit thinking when they invoked Baker in a matter that did not involve the right to same sex marriage.