Louisiana Judge Makes a Fool Out of Himself Trying to Argue Against Same-Sex Marriage

judge-martin-feldmanOpponents of same-sex marriage really need to face reality – they lost. It’s no longer a matter of if same-sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states, but when. 

Sure, they’re winning a battle here and there, but it’s only a matter of time before gay marriage is going to be legal.

Well, a federal judge in Louisiana apparently isn’t a fan of gay Americans having the right to marry. And in his ruling that upheld Louisiana’s ban on same-sex marriage, he gave what I feel might just be the most ridiculous argument against gay marriage I’ve ever heard.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman wrote

For example, must the states permit or recognize a marriage between an aunt and niece? Aunt and nephew? Brother/brother? Father and child? May minors marry? Must marriage be limited to only two people? What about a transgender spouse? Is such a union same-gender or male-female? All such unions would undeniably be equally committed to love and caring for one another, just like the plaintiffs.

So, let me get this straight. Allowing two, consenting adults of the same sex to marry might open the door for inter-family marriage, polygamy and underage marriage?

And how, exactly, would heterosexual marriage not do the same thing?

It’s shocking that this is a federal judge who’s supposed to interpret the law when it’s clear in this ridiculous ruling that he’s nothing more than a homophobe.

His ruling makes absolutely zero sense. Hell, I’m surprised he didn’t throw in marrying animals just for good measure. He might as well have. It couldn’t have made his comments any more ignorant or absurd than they already are.

Want to know an easy way to “define marriage” without opening the floodgates on all sorts of ridiculous marriages? Here’s how:

Marriage is a legal agreement between two (and only two) consenting adults, who aren’t related by blood.

That’s it. Simple, right?

This isn’t a complicated issue. Same-sex marriage isn’t some slippery-slope toward people marrying their toasters or favorite family member. For anyone to actually try to make that argument is both ridiculous and disgusting. These types of arguments are nothing more than ignorance personified.

If someone wants to oppose same-sex marriage simply because they don’t agree with same-sex marriage, that’s fine. It’s ignorant, but at least they’re being honest. But for someone to sit there and try to perpetuate this idea that same-sex marriage opens the door for these other kinds of outlandish types of marriages is simply pathetic.

If someone wants to be a bigot, then they should at least have the courage to just admit that they are. But don’t try to insult our intelligence by trying to justify that bigotry with asinine reasoning like this.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Ace

    In most jurisdictions, marriage between blood relations (consanguinity) is allowed, depending on the degree. Some, but not all, jurisdictions disallow marriage between first cousins; the laws are more liberal in this area than most of us realize. To define marriage as, “…a legal agreement between two (and only two) consenting adults, who aren’t related by blood” narrows the existing laws tremendously and opens a whole new can of worms. Better to simply say ‘a legal agreement between two consenting adults.’
    As far as polygamous marriages, a few years ago, I would have been personally be opposed to them, too. After having watched a couple of seasons of “Sister Wives” [which, I understand, does not make me an expert], I no longer feel that way–under certain circumstances, I now believe that it can work to the mutual benefit of everyone involved, as long as it’s a consensual relationship between adults.

    • Dissenter13a

      Actually, the State has a compelling interest in prohibiting marriages between close family members, as the children of such liaisons are likely to be mentally deficient, and end up as wards of the State.

      Your mileage may vary in Kentucky.

      • Ace

        I don’t disagree–I’m just saying that most states already allow for some blood relations to marry, depending on the degree. To unilaterally declare that ALL marriages must only be between “two consenting adults who aren’t related by blood” would require most jurisdictions to change laws that are already on the books.

      • Dissenter13a

        I agree. Allen’s blanket statement is the product of the trademark imprecision of a political science major. Statutes define who may marry, but only restrictions that pass constitutional muster may be enforced.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Funny how many states STILL prohibit gay marriage even though SCOTUS scuttled DOMA.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I think we are talking 2nd, 3rd, 4th… cousins here.Children of your parents, siblings children may marry in most places. Inbreeding seldom happens out side of sharing 1/4 the DNA with the other new parent.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Unlimited mileage in WV and AL.

    • Jim Bean

      I agree. And we need to go further and ensure that those sexually attracted to their pets don’t end up being discriminated against.

      • However pets are not legal sentient adult persons and cannot consent. Therein lies the difference.

      • Jim Bean

        Pets are personal property. The owner can kill and eat them if they want. And you want to make an issue of consent?

      • Well, yes, if you’re trying to suggest that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to people marrying their dogs and horses. If such a thing were to happen, pets would have to be elevated to the same status as a sentient adult human being, which they obviously are not. Since this is so, your objection about pets is a stupid distracting strawperson.

      • Jim Bean

        “…would have to be elevated to the same status as a sentient adult human being.” You made that up. There’s no ‘have to’ about that written anywhere.

      • Jim, as usual you’re making no sense. In any case, it’s irrelevant. It’s not going to happen, so your objection about pets is still a stupid distracting strawperson.

      • Stephen Barlow

        There is no place where ‘marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman” that is binding by any nonsense not created by man.

      • Stephen Barlow

        The rampant stupidity of this banaly nane idiot is beyond contempt. Don’t waste you time.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Actually, that is animal cruelty and NO they may NOT! Michael Vick got 4 years for dog fighting. how much time do you think he’d have gotten if he ate the dead ones?

      • Jim Bean

        People eat sheep all the time and don’t go to jail for it.

      • Stephen Barlow

        But that’s NOT what Charlesdoes with sheep. Or is it goats? He’s like you, he doesn’t have the courage to answer an honest question.

      • Stephen Barlow

        And they are seldom over 16- 18 so they have not attained the age of consent. Jim? Have been statutorily raping your goats and sheep?

      • Cemetery Girl

        Pets, wildlife, ect are unable to enter into a legal contract. That is all legal marriage is, legal contract. You can’t sue a pet. (If, say, the neighbor’s dog attacks you or they have a horse that comes onto your property and causes damages, you must sue the owner. It isn’t because the animal has no income, but because it is considered property. Like if a tree branch falls on your car you can’t sue the tree…) A pet cannot enter into legal contracts. This isn’t a difficult concept.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I shod read this thing from the bottom up. I just now pointed that out. hehehe

        If three people marry, are they all committing BIGAMY?

      • Stephen Barlow

        What pets are YOU sexually attracted to Jim? Which is YOUR preference, sheep or goats?

    • RD

      Banning polygamous marriage isn’t a violation of the 14th amendment equal protection clause though, and that is what all this wrangling is about from a legal perspective [natural human rights are a different topic]. Banning a person from marrying 2 others is legit in my view so long as the ban is not contingent on the sex of any party involved. However, banning Person-F from marrying Person-A, but allowing Person-M to marry that same individual – solely on the basis that F is female and M is Male is a prima facie case of descriminafion and violation of equal protection. So it’s legit to restrict marriage to two consenting adults. Not that I’m saying that is right per se, but it’s defensible on constitutional grounds, where as a same sex ban simply is not.

      • Stephen Barlow

        So, you are saying that a F-F-M marriage ban is NOT denying ANY rights to any 2 of the three parties? HOG WASH!

        A multiple marriage is like a three of a kind Cribbage hand, it is scored as three pairs.

        What no one has pointed out is marrying two people at the same time is BIGAMY. Which must be redefined for any multiple marriage to NOT be a felony in some states.

      • RD

        You were successful in completely missing the point. Of course it’s denying something to ban plural marriage, but it’s doing so equally – not discriminating arbitrarily between two individuals. It’s discriminating equally, and hence not an obvious violation of the equal protection clause – and that’s a legally defensible position. Right or wrong at this point is largely irrelevant, it legal/illegal and constitutional/unconstitutional that’s at issue. A matter of law, not natural rights. After the interpretation of fairly obvious law is dealt with (no SS marriage ban) then the conversation can be broadened.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I kinda saw that point but dismissed it. Rereading it, in your context, I see the minute distinction. Speaking of LAWS, the whole point is MOOT because 100% of the members of a multiple marriage are guilty of BIGAMY, no matter HOW you paint it.

    • Stephen Barlow

      In Alabama, West Virginia and Kentucky I believe you are legally bound, although it is seldom enforced in this century, to give your virginity up to blood kin.

  • Dissenter13a

    Judges routinely impose their worldview upon the populace under color of law. This comes as a surprise?

  • Amber

    Where minors, toasters, and animals can’t join a legally binding contract, I can’t see why consenting legal adults are being stopped, even by you Allen Clifton. If my husband and I wish to openly join with a consenting 3rd or 4th adult of either sex, why should we be stopped? How we decide to operate our family either by religious or lack of religious reasons is no different then a couple, whether in a traditional male/female role or an untraditional couple of any LGBT combination.

    I hate the slippery slope argument but I hate even more progressives asking for just a little bit, while throwing others under the bus to pander to the right. When we should be fighting for equal rights for all including polygamists.

    • Jim Bean

      Allen, I eagerly awaiting your response to what appears to me to be a very well articulated argument.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Obviously we can’t expect one from you.

    • Jeffrey

      One of the de facto consequences of legal marriage is that it establishes an unambiguous next-of-kin relationship between married partners. Plural co-equal marriage does not allow for that. That is not to say that I disapprove of plural relationships (or whether it matters whether or not I disapprove), but they are different in that regard from a legal standpoint, which, after all, is what we are discussing — legal recognition of specific relationships.

      • Cemetery Girl

        If plural marriage was legal, I wonder how some legal matters would be handled? If a man with multiple legal wives were to die with no will, how would his assets be divided? (Realistically, even with a will one or more wives could contest the will.) If he had 5 wives would assets be divided equally between them or go to the first of the 5? Would the length of each marriage be a factor, so a wife that had been married to him for 15 years received a larger share than one that had only been married to him a year or two? How would it be handled if the man was on life support and the doctors could find no signs of brain activity? Which wife would be the one to make that choice that is an established decision of a spouse? The application of same sex marriage fits into these situations, but plural marriage does present situations that would need to be resolved.

      • Stephen Barlow

        True, but that’s only important for inheritances and child custody. Although upon the death of both parents, I think there is a hierarchy, which leads to FEUDS.

    • Stephen Barlow

      I agree. The social organization of any ‘family’ is NOT NOW NOR NEVER HAS BEEN the purview of any court.

  • fja123

    “And how, exactly, would heterosexual marriage not do the same thing?”

    Isn’t that how we got to SSM in the first place? The only reason those other scenarios are invalid is because they are social taboos that haven’t gained support; much the way SSM didn’t 40 yrs ago, no? Currently they are distasteful to the majority (including myself), as you yourself so eloquently pointed out by calling them “ignorant and disgusting”. Remind you of any homophobic comments? Who’s to say such scenarios won’t be accepted in a few centuries; polygamy is on the brink, underage is condoned in certain societies and was favorable when the average age of death was lower than it is today, and incestuous births have been shown to cause no more genetic disorders than non-incestuous ones (besides, if someone wants to risk it, that’s their choice). Personally, I don’t care for any of them, so like we tell homophobes, I won’t get one, but it’s none of my business if someone wants to, nor will I vote against someone’s right to, except the underage one; I’m not ready to accept that yet; hypocritical? maybe; so sue me.

  • lance justis

    This argument is as ridiculous as hammers kill people, lets ban hammers. It is a weak red herring to throw out relatives getting married. The question at hand is same sex. Stay on topic you old fart!

    • Stephen Barlow

      VERY true.

  • Almon Stanley

    What I don’t care for is when they get really ridiculous and say next you’ll want to marry your bicycle or your favorite tree!
    Then you try to explain to them that a tree or a bicycle is an inanimate object that has no power of consent, this of course is after you had to explain to them that know you cannot marry a child because a child has no power of consent so you can just stop talking about Nambla!
    Then of course there is the question of multiple husbands and wives to which I always tell them you should be for that if you look in your Bible that’s traditional biblical marriage, I thought that you were for traditional biblical marriage!
    Personally I could never do a multiple marriage I think it would never work for me personally and definitely not financially, frankly I don’t know how those people do it, but that’s their business as my uncle always used to say!
    But I do so enjoy listening to the court arguments because it’s absolutely hilarious, they actually go into the court room with a very polite version of what I see on YouTube or in pal talk and use ignorance bigotry and prejudice as an argument!
    Then the fun really ensues as it goes round and round in a circle until the judge finally gets tired of them not answering the question because they can’t answer the question because if they do it’s over!
    So at least they’re good for a cheap laugh, and the court room broadcasts make for good party tapes, it’s amazing how ignorant people can be, I mean come on you’re in a court of law can you come up with something better, I expected them to come up with some sort of intelligible legal arguments against gay marriage I sincerely did, but really what should I expect from a gang of backward children!

    I read somewhere that I believe it was the United Church of Christ is going to sue a state for not allowing them the right to practice their religion and marry gay people, if that goes through that will be absolutely beautiful because it will make the conservative right wing really get mad because it will be using religion against them-lolololololol, and all this time they’ve been trying to use religion unsuccessfully that should really burn their cookies!

    • Stephen Barlow

      I am GLAD you reserve those rights to a multiple marriage for OTHERS, whom NO ONE should be making decisions for.

      In other words, NO ONE should be making social decisions for ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING. THE more this happens, the less freedom and liberty is being allowed. Or the MORE freedom and Liberty is being denied.

      Marriage is a contract, which is the ONLY REASON is can be argued in any court. IF it were not and say “A religious ritual/sacrement” or a “Civil union”… then they are NOT a question of LAW, and should be dismissed @ face value without a single thought by any court.

    • Jim Bean

      20 years ago, and for all the years prior, it was ‘normal’ not to sanction gay marriage. What changed? And did it change really, or are we just playing charades with it?

  • Marriage is a legal agreement between two (and only two) consenting *human* adults, who aren’t related by blood.
    Otherwise the anally retentive might still have inter-species since a dog consents to almost anything…

  • Mark McCauley

    Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry,” [Judge] Posner wrote. “Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure

    • Cemetery Girl

      I always hated this argument against same sex marriage. Heterosexuals can marry and not have any children. There is no screening for fertility when applying for a marriage license.
      And what does that say about him that he thinks people get married because they had drunken sex and “had” to get married? Obviously some people create a child and don’t marry. (Personally, I dislike the idea of a child witnessing first hand an unhappy marriage between two people that would never had married each other if not for pressure to make a pregnancy “respectable”, and growing up with the knowledge that the union was all because of the existence of the child.) Some people marry because they want to share their life with a person and pregnancy isn’t a factor. That’s just kind of a sad view, that heterosexuals get drunk, give in to lust, and if pregnancy occurs the “get to” get married.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I think he was trying to debunk the “Marriage is for procreation” bullsh*t that flies out of the mouths of Christopublicans on a daily basis.

        I just know for a fact that whoever is enjoying sex with Me isn’t getting pregnant because I insist on ORAL CONTRACEPTION.

    • Stephen Barlow

      Excellent point. I have no opinion on gay sex other than most gay men give better head then most hetro women.

      I used to tell homophobes, “Dude! Why keep them apart? Think hard now! I say let them all get married, because if homosexuality IS genetic as many claim, they will breed the gene out of humanity in three generations.”

      I said that to make the look and feel stupid. In My mind, in a world of hate and anger, who am I to deny ANY love found between people.

  • Stephen Barlow

    It’s shocking how such educated people could A) conceive such self delusions and B) be ALLOWED to continue make judicial decisions in cases affecting the lives of others.

    Or WORSE, C) legislating from the bench!!!! Which Bush,
    Bush and Reagan appointees as prone to do on NON CRIMINAL, NON CIVIL social issues.

  • Mark Lyell

    I have never heard the blood line angle discussed and think it is a legitimate point of legal clarification on the way to the Supreme Court. The reason for not allowing blood relatives to marry has to do with potential birth defects, which would not be a concern in same sex marriage. What Allen proposes is equal under the law and should be explicitly stated.

  • JudgeX X

    Whatever weird shit you’re into marrying isn’t my business, so why would it be the government’s business if you want to marry your aunt?

    Can I be content with calling you an incestuous freak and going on about my day, or do I need to get the whole legal system involved, because I don’t really care, and I don’t want to pay politicians, judges, police, and social workers to deal with this kind of bullshit when there’s more important stuff for them to do and better ways to spend tax money.

    Oh, I forgot, I live in a country full of people who want every single one of their whims and ideas written down as law and enforced upon everyone they even hear of.

  • gian keys LOVES shemale porn

    VOTE ” REEEEEEEEEE–PUBLICAN white trash regressive,,,,,,”
    that’s for my good friend crybaby IVAN the RENKO as he laments usage of anything he doesn’t like–

    ………..such as: tabasco on oatmeal?

  • SteveXS

    Feldman was nominated to
    the U.S. District Court for the
    Eastern District of Louisiana by President Ronald
    Reagan on September 9, 1983. He also concurrently serves on the U.S. Foreign Intelligence
    Surveillance Court. He was appointed on May 19, 2010, and his term will
    not expire until May 18, 2017. After the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of
    Mexico, the Obama administration put a moratorium
    on new deep-water drilling projects in the Gulf until
    safeguards could be put in place. Feldman blocked the moratorium and ordered the Obama Administration to decide on five pending deep
    sea drilling permits within 30 days or be held in contempt of court. He wrote,
    “The plaintiff’s operations in the Gulf of Mexico are threatened with endless
    disability.” He was referring, of course to the oil company.
    the ruling, it was discovered that Feldman owned stock in companies involved in
    his ruling.

  • SteveXS

    was nominated to the U.S. District
    Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana by
    President Ronald
    Reagan on
    September 9, 1983. He also concurrently serves on the U.S.
    Intelligence Surveillance Court.
    He was appointed on May 19, 2010, and his term will not expire
    until May 18, 2017. After the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of
    Mexico, the Obama administration put a moratorium on new deep-water
    drilling projects in the Gulf until safeguards could be
    put in place. Feldman blocked the moratorium and ordered the Obama
    Administration to decide on five pending deep sea drilling permits
    within 30 days or be held in contempt of court. He wrote, “The
    plaintiff’s operations in the Gulf of Mexico are threatened with
    endless disability.” He was referring, of course to the oil
    company. After the ruling, it was discovered that Feldman owned stock
    in companies involved in his ruling.

  • tblo

    They have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation, why don’t they focus on that.