A Louisiana state judge has decided to try to bring the state into the 21st century just weeks after a federal judge in the state
became the first to decide against marriage equality since the Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act. In the new case, Judge Edward Rubin was directly considering whether to recognize the marriage of two women married in California so that one could adopt a child birthed by the other. Rubin said yes—and then he
followed that logic where it took him:
Rubin ordered that Costanza is able to adopt the child under the “intrafamily adoption” provision in state law because her marriage to Brewer is recognized in Louisiana. Additionally, he ordered that the head of the state’s Department of Revenue must allow the couple to file a tax return as a married couple.
Despite the lack of any plaintiffs in the case seeking to marry in Louisiana, Rubin went further, enjoining state officials from enforcing those laws insofar as they prevent same-sex couples from marrying — in order words, ordering state officials to allow same-sex couples to marry. [...]
Rubin goes on to swat down the state’s argument about allowing for widespread consensus before adopting such a change and decries any support for a system of “separate but equal” through analysis of the country’s history with racial discrimination. He then concludes that any remaining reasons given by the state for the bans, such as keeping children connected with their biological parents, have no connection to the bans themselves and that, therefore, there is no rational basis for the bans and they are unconstitutional.
Louisiana's attorney general is planning to appeal to the state's Supreme Court, so this is not a done deal. But it's another step toward justice.