Two members of the Louisiana Supreme Court railed against same-sex marriage this week in a ruling that should have been a formality. One of the justices even insinuated that same-sex marriage was dangerous to children because LGBT people are sexual predators.
The Louisiana Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed an appeal seeking to overturn a judge's ruling that found the state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, citing the Supreme Court's historic June ruling on same-sex marriage. The Louisiana Supreme Court noted in its 6-1 ruling that the U.S. Supreme Court decision was "final and binding on this court."
The lone dissenter in the Louisiana ruling, Justice Jeff Hughes, said the U.S. Supreme Court couldn't change the definition of marriage.
"Judges instruct jurors every week not to surrender their honest convictions merely to reach agreement," he wrote. "I cannot do so now, and respectfully dissent. Marriage is not only for the parties. Its purpose is to provide children with a safe and stable environment in which to grow. It is the epitome of civilization. Its definition cannot be changed by legalisms.
He also suggested it was dangerous for a gay couple to adopt a boy, insinuating that LGBT people were pedophiles.
"This case involves an adoption," Hughes continued. "The most troubling prospect of same sex marriage is the adoption by same sex partners of a young child of the same sex. Does the 5-4 decision of the United States Supreme Court automatically legalize this type of adoption? While the majority opinion of Justice Kennedy leaves it to the various courts and agencies to hash out these issues, I do not concede the reinterpretation of every statute premised upon traditional marriage."
In his concurring opinion, Justice Greg Guidry noted that his colleague appeared to be confused about the Supreme Court case in question.
"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," he wrote. "In any event, the dissenting opinion cites no legal or scientific authority, nor does the record contain any evidence, that would support its insinuation."
Justice Jeanette Theriot Knoll also wrote an opinion in which she agreed that the Louisiana Supreme Court was legally bound by the Supreme Court's ruling. But she described the case as "horrific" and "a complete and unnecessary insult to the people of Louisiana who voted on this very issue."
"Moreover, the five unelected judges’ declaration that the right to marry whomever one chooses is a fundamental right is a mockery of those rights explicitly enumerated in our Bill of Rights. Simply stated, it is a legal fiction imposed upon the entirety of this nation because these five people think it should be," Knoll wrote.
She claimed she had "many friends in same-sex relationships" -- but insisted she would not support their right to marry.
"It is a sad day in America when five lawyers beholden to none and appointed for life can rob the people of their democratic process, forcing so-called civil liberties regarding who can marry on all Americans when the issue was decided by the states as solemn expressions of the will of the people," Knoll added.