Louisiana Judge Martin Feldman has put his foot down when it comes to constitutional law.
Contrary to the 20-plus "activist" judges who ignored the will of the people by striking down state constitutional amendments that according to the Family Research Council (which is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center) "protects natural marriage" (I didn't realize marriage occurred in nature), Judge Fledman "restored some semblance of credibility and sanity" by refusing to strike down the ban on same sex marriage.
He is apparently relying on "centuries of social research" that children "do better with a mother and a father." While this may ultimately be true, I've never heard of a child living with gay parents sustaining trauma or death caused directly or intentionally by their parents' negligence.
Judge Feldman believes the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment on equal protection and due process somehow doesn't apply to gays while being deeply concerned with "linking children to an intact family formed by their two biological parents."
Never miss a local story.
So my question is: How does preventing marriage rights, financial, insurance and survivor benefits, etc., to gay couples place their children in a "better" position or "link" them to their biological parents that have divorced?
This judge, with a history of corruption, believes that unnecessary and blatantly bigoted state constitutional amendments trump the federal constitution. He admits that gay marriage is an "undiscovered country," so apparently it's best to deny it despite Massachussett's uneventful 10-year history of gay marriage.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said it best about judges "stampeding" on the rights of voters he insists know what's best for gay couples and their children. After all, how dare those activist judges stampede the rights of voters who want to trample on the rights of gay people.