What started out as a routine order by the Louisiana Supreme Court on tuesday quickly escalated, as one of the four court member’s present claimed that he is not obligated to follow the US Supreme Court’s rulings.
In the case of Costanza v. Caldwell, the actual official opinion of the court is that “the State of Louisiana may not bar same-sex couples from the civil effects of marriage on the same terms accorded to opposite-sex couples.”
However, despite this official standing, the historic ruling has sparked some rather differing opinion’s from the Louisiana court members. For example, Justice Jeannette Theriot Knoll publicly conceded her obligation to follow the ruling, but then privately wrote to complain regarding “horrific impact these five lawyers have made on the democratic rights of the American people to define marriage and the rights stemming by operation of law there from.”
In retort, one of the other Justices, John Weimer, righly pointed out that it is not a Judge’s job to “point out what, in my view, the law should be.”
That isn’t the end of it, though, and in fact the best opinion of the lot is yet to come. The most unusual opinion came from Justice Jefferson D. Hughes, III who actually dissented the decision by the Louisiana court that they were obligated to follow the US Supreme Court’s rulings and binding constitutional precedents.
He said: “Judges instruct jurors every week not to surrender their honest convictions merely to reach agreement. I cannot do so now.”
Jefferson offered no legal backing to his opinion, not in the form of legal arguments or authorities, but he did take the time to imply that gay parents are paedophiles. He went on to say: “This case involves an adoption. The most troubling prospect of same sex marriage is the adoption by same sex partners of a young child of the same sex.”
Ridiculous implications aside, Justice Greg Guidry also pointed out that not he is also wrong about the intricacies of the case. Greg went on to say: “the dissenting opinion appears to be unaware of the facts of the case before us, which involves the intra-family adoption of a boy by the female spouse of the boy’s biological mother.”