Puerto Rico's gay marriage ban upheld by federal judge- LA Times


**Puerto Rico’s gay marriage ban upheld by federal judge- LA Times
Puerto Rico’s ban on same-sex marriage remains in place after a federal judge dismissed a challenge to the ban Tuesday, saying the U.S. Supreme Court established a precedent four decades ago.

U.S. District Judge Juan M. Pérez-Giménez said in his decision that by dismissing an appeal in Baker vs. Nelson, a 1971 case in which two men sought to marry in Minnesota, the Supreme Court bound all lower courts to assume bans on same-sex marriage do not violate the Constitution. The high court could choose to overrule itself but has not, he said.


So the presiding Judge went back to that 1971 case. Interesting and of course, it goes without saying PR is not actually a state.


Great news! Is true that Puerto Rico is not a state but bear in mind this is the federal first circuit so this decision will have consequences and does create a split between federal courts.


That’s right. They are in the 1st Circuit.

Here’s the opinion itself:





Once again, Big Filter Media uses the term “ban”—not a journalistically objective term.


Yes MA is also first circuit, however I am pretty sure almost every state in the first circuit has legalized it (thanks to is for starting everything). Thanks for posting the decision I am interested in reading it.


This seems good news. Now that we finally have a decision going this way, it seems that the SCOTUS won’t be able to put off taking it up next time around. Look for the momentous decision in late June 2016. :stuck_out_tongue:


This is a victory for the Truth, but remember that people will be emotionally charged by this. We need to pray that people might see their value and dignity as a person is not dependent on their ability to get married or not.


We’re not there yet, however. The losing plaintiff’s will have to appeal to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, and the 1st Circuit will have to uphold the trial court. If it reverses we won’t have a split in the circuits.


This is the 2nd District Court judge to rule this way. The other was in New Orleans.

It will have to split at the Appellate level for to mean anything. But, this gives one more opportunity for that to happen.

If I recall correctly, the judge ruled the way he did because the 1st Circuit Appellate Court ruled just 2 years ago that marriage was a state issue.


But if it reverses it, how does it do so without also reversing Baker?

And if Baker is reversed, then wouldn’t the SCOTUS have grounds for reviewing the case if the first circuit reverses?


Did you notice how this news story isn’t plastered on the front page or anywhere for that matter on all the standard American news websites sites, e.g. Yahoo, Comcast, NBC, ABC, and CBS News?

That’s the game these Media people play; it’s called pretending the opposing point of view does not exist.

By doing that, the Media blocks the general public from being exposed to opposing opinions that do not fit their agenda.

Out of sight; out of mind: then you don’t have to deal at all with the arguments of those who think differently from you influencing the populace.

They play the same game with ignoring Pro-Life issues and leaders of the Pro-Life Movement, the Ethnic Cleansing of Christians in the Middle East, clergy of non-Christian religions who commit sexual and other crimes, violent crimes and riots committed by minorities, crimes committed by illegal aliens (whom the Media now calls “immigrants”), crimes committed by sodomites, and the psychiatric problems that marijuana use causes in young people.

The Media simply ignores reality, distorts and warps it, and gives no coverage or as little coverage as possible to the facts that do not fit or agree with the way it sees the world and how it wants the general public see it.


And the few media sources who do report it are marginalized by the left as untrustworthy sources.


Appellate Courts have broad authority to do darned near whatever they want. The decisions the various appellate courts have made so far stand in opposition the prior stated law, and that hasn’t hindered them. If you read the Puerto Rico case, the judge really goes after those courts implicitly for judicial legislation, which is exactly what they’ve been doing.


I should note that this still leaves the option of a party petitioning the Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari, but so far the Supreme Court hasn’t elected to take this cause up without a split in the circuits.

It could, however. It just didn’t. It was probably hoping for a split to make it necessary to take it up, cognizant that resolution of the issue would then be necessary and therefore more accepted by the populace. The problem is, with the judges tripping over themselves to wipe out any traditional definition of marriage those who achieved their goals through the court will be sufficiently vested in them that, at this rate, the Court will necessarily be disinclined to reverse the recent decisions as the impact of them will have begun to set in like cement.

In other words, this really needs to get up there soon, with soon being up there within a year or so.


Ah. I get confused over the various layers of the court system. :o


But the appellate courts respond to what is brought before them, and my impression is that Burke wasn’t referenced in any of the prior cases.


And this is a well drafted clear opinion, making it harder to overrule.


Agreed, from my novice perspective, but my level of certitude is very vague.

I think if the Appellate court upholds it I think I would be pleasantly surprised.

The 6th circuit seem the most likely to support traditional marriage, but that depends on the judge selection, right? Will all the judges sit in on the case or is there a ‘randomly’ selected set of several judges to consider whether to hear it? IF they refuse to overturn a pro-traditional ruling, then does that constitute a division among the appellate courts?


From parallel thread;

Perhaps this explains a little bit why SCOTUS recently declined to act more decisively.
The Puerto Rico judge asserts that, technically, SCOTUS has never officially reversed its 1972 ruling on the question of whether “marriage” is specifically a Constitutional matter.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.