Thursday, 23 July 2015 12:15
Sadow: Louisiana got bang for buck with anti-gay activity lawsuit
Written by 

caldwellLouisiana spent a lot of money defending its Constitution for something overturned by federal judicial fiat. It was worth it.

 

Last month’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that protected from prohibition by states a product of homosexual activity, same sex marriage, ended up costing the state at least $330,000 in fees it paid outside counsel for that defense; these dollars might have been lower in terms of manpower had state attorneys handled the case that Louisiana’s constitutional ban, approved by over three-quarters of voters over a decade ago, was within powers granted by the states that should not be abrogated by including practices not already listed in the Constitution as protected as in the case of free speech and religious exercise. That figure probably will end up half again higher when court costs and reimbursement of the plaintiffs’ legal fees are figured in. Ironically, because Louisiana’s case presented the best exposition against the plaintiffs’ claims, that probably increased the costs.

Of course, a half a million dollars is relative. After all, Louisiana wasted, net, around $170 million in motion picture investor tax credits in the last year for which there is calculated data, and probably will waste around $50 million this year in the earned income tax credit that discourages working to maximal effort. Still, anything is better for use than having nothing available.

True, the decision was indefensible on any but the most emotional grounds. Why should the Court grant special status to this particular manifestation of behavior, deviating from existing jurisprudence, that now opens the door, at the macro level, to the Court creating other protected classes rooted in behavioral aspects only on the basis of what seems popular and, at the micro level, from making any coherent or intellectual argument preventing polygamous, incestuous, or even (if things keep going this way) interspecies marriages? Yet the decision is the decision regardless of its merit, and so, in retrospect, ending up on the losing side costs money that could have been avoided by laying down on this issue.

But in the very not capitulating to the trendiness of the moment is where the expenditure pays off. Not in victory, but in exposition of the willingness to defend what is right, the conceptualization of American government as one that operates by rules, these found in the Constitution in a manner unambiguously enough that they illuminate the violation done to them by this decision. The Constitution tells us that states have a general police power that includes regulation of marriage, that regulation of marriage occurs through republican forms of government that include one or both of democratically-elected policy-makers and/or the people directly democratically, and that Congress and the states (through the 14th Amendment) are not specifically prohibited from regulating in a way where government treats those who practice heterosexuality differently than those who practice homosexuality, justifiably discriminating in that the state has a vested interest in encouraging heterosexual relationships as this is the only union that allows the state to perpetuate the society that allows it to govern.

The decision ignoring these facets wounded the very essence of the Constitution by violating these parts of it, and in denying their obvious existence erodes the very foundation, in the micro sense, of our specific and formal kind of government and, in the macro sense, of the larger concept of republican rule. Not to stand athwart of this notion that the Constitution may be disregarded when politically inconvenient and creates unfashionable outcomes is to collaborate in its degradation. To resist this at least minimizes, although does not reverse, the damage, for it puts on notice those who so carelessly jettison this respect for the rule of law, even if they comprise a Supreme Court majority, that what they do is neither right nor healthy to our system of government.

Accordingly, it was money very well spent. The courage to do what is right on a matter of this importance should make that endeavor priceless.

Jeffrey Sadow

Jeffrey Sadow is an associate professor of political science at Louisiana State University in Shreveport.   He writes a daily conservative blog called Between The Lines

Website: jeffsadow.blogspot.com/
Login to post comments
Powered By JFBConnect
  • Cat Fights on the Hot Cement Confederate New Orleans statues
  • Ex-Saints, Bears, Bills, NFL Exec, Jim W. Miller discusses NFL Draft tomorrow
  • Trump's new plan; Curtains on tax returns release; 40% say Trump-Russia; Probing Obama admin
  • Watch Louisiana Governor Edwards talk about CAT Tax failure

catRarely, have I seen few issues that have generated as much raw heat, tension, and passion than the Confederate monuments controversy. 

Just as existed during the real civil war, where brothers battled brothers, social media is the battleground, particularly Facebook, pitting friend against friend.

On one side of the tense divide, there are those who are protecting the New Orleans civil war era monuments.  Burnt in effigy, forever, is the symbol of Mayor Mitch Landrieu for up-ending what the monument protectors consider to be the loving civil society of New Orleans.

Lately, events have turned somewhat militaristic.

Some protectors of the Confederate monuments have been staying vigilant, in person and online, even surveilling during the wee hours of the morning, waiting for the next Mayor Landrieu attack. On Sunday morning, with protections of snipers, masked workers and a dumbstruck audience, the worst of all of the monuments was cut and carried., the Liberty Monument. 

Read More

miller nfl live2 5It’s D-Day or Draft Day tomorrow in the NFL.

More specifically, Thursday represents the first day of the NFL draft 2017.

Read More

 

trump curtainsThe major President Trump news of the day focuses upon taxes, not only the tax cuts he is proposing but his own taxes, which he obviously, refuses to unveil.

 

Read More

edwards play money 1

At a press conference today, Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards said the CAT Tax did not pass the House Ways and Means Committee.  The Governor, in addressing the media said that "the fate of that bill was decided long before we unveiled it".

Read More

latter-blum2

Sen. Appel talks budget, economy

TRUMP TALK

Dead Pelican

Optimized-DeadPelican2 1 1