Discussion for article #229182
His opinion speaks, nay shrieks, for itself. Shouldn’t be too hard to overrule on appeal.
1 Like
Someone’s cranky. Probably ready for a nap.
A nice long one.
1 Like
apparently, he’s never heard of the US Constitution. who’s he trying to please, with an opinion that stands zero chance of sustention on appeal?
1 Like
Now that every single reason given by opponents of same-sex marriage to “justify” discrimination against same-sex couples has been shot down as nonsense (“will destroy the institution of marriage”, “marriage is all about children”), attempts to enforce religious beliefs, or irrelevant and ignorant appeals to history (“it has always been one man and one woman”), Judge Pérez-Giménez has cycled back to arguing that there doesn’t have to be any justification for the discrimination.
But, only in a legal sense. He couldn’t help going for the nonsense and irrelevant/ignorant appeals to history justifications in his conclusion:
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 or even discarded.
“Well-tested, well-proven”? Can we get Bill Nye over here for quick Fundamentals of Science lesson?
1 Like
Juan Manuel Pérez-Giménez is off base here…Thank God the Appeals Court will overturn his stupidity.