Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman ruled that Louisiana's LGB (we'll get to T later) citizens can go fuck themselves when it comes to same-sex marriage. In his decision, Feldman was Scalia-like in the forthrightness of his nearly cosmic bitchiness upholding the state's constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. He's such a little bitch about it, you gotta believe that he stands on corners, like a little bitch, just yippin' at the gay couples that walk by.
Other will go into the vast array of problems the decision has on a legal basis. But the Rude Pundit wants you to enjoy the best lines a little bitch of a judge can offer to defend his ludicrous, little bitch position.
"[I]n this Court's judgment, defendants assert a legitimate state interest in safeguarding that fundamental social change, in this instance, is better cultivated through democratic consensus. This Court agrees," Feldman writes. And then he lists every case that this one "runs counter to." Let's not even get into the endless social change that has been the result of the judiciary and not "democratic consensus." Maybe we can start with Brown v. Board of Education and go from there.
He contines, "Louisiana's laws and Constitution are directly related to achieving marriage's historically preeminent purpose of linking children to their biological parents." Well, no. Historically, marriage was a property covenant, although maybe Feldman is thinking of the old southern tradition of the shotgun wedding.
Feldman couldn't give a greasy dildo's worth of a damn about "the opinion of a set of social scientists (ardently disputed by many others, it should be noted) that other associative forms may be equally stable, or the view that such judgments vilify a group." Ain't no "scientists" who "research" "things" gonna tell Loozyanna that you're an ignorant country fuck if you oppose same sex marriage. He doesn't care a bit about "the fact that the state's precepts work to one group's disadvantage" because that group's queer.
And you can shove your desire for equal protection up your gay asses: "Because this Court concludes that Louisiana's laws are rationally related to its legitimate state interests, as defendants plausibly focus, they do not offend plaintiffs' rights to Equal Protection." You're protected because you don't have access to the protections. If you're prohibited from marrying, then no equal protection for you.
"There is simply no fundamental right, historically or traditionally, to same-sex marriage," Feldman writes. And you always want to base your idea of rights on history and tradition, especially in the slavery-built, worker-exploiting United States.
Feldman thinks that once the people decide it, the courts have no business shoving their noses into everyone's nice discrimination: "This Court has arduously studied the volley of nationally orchestrated court rulings against states whose voters chose in free and open elections, whose legislatures, after a robust, even fractious debate and exchange of competing, vigorously differing views, listened to their citizens regarding the harshly divisive and passionate issue on same-sex marriage."
Towards the end, Feldman gets wistful about the potential future: "Perhaps in a new established point of view, marriage will be reduced to contract law, and, by contract, anyone will be able to claim marriage...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?" (Told ya we'd get to "T.")
Then, in the Rude Pundit's favorite single line of the decision, "Plaintiffs' counsel was unable to answer such kinds of questions." And that's probably because the same-sex marriage proponents were thinking, "What the fuck? This dude is such a little bitch."
Finally, at last, when all else is done, Feldman gets nigh on poetic:
"This Court is powerless to be indifferent to the unknown and possibly imprudent consequences of such a decision.
A decision for which there remains the arena of democratic debate.
Free and open and probing debate.
Indeed, fractious debate."
There will be an appeal. Hopefully, one of the bases for it will be that Feldman is a little bitch.