21 to 1

That is the number of courts that have overturned same-sex marriage bans. Yesterday the federal judge in Louisiana upheld the states marriage discrimination law.

The Christian News Network had this to say about his ruling,

NEW ORLEANS – A federal judge nominated to the bench by then-President Ronald Reagan has upheld Louisiana’s state constitutional amendment enshrining marriage as being between a man and a woman.
[…]
“This ruling confirms that the people of Louisiana—not the federal courts—have the constitutional right to decide how marriage is defined in this state,” commented Gene Mills, president of Lousiana [sic] Family Forum.

“We commend Judge Feldman for refraining from judicial activism and recognizing that Louisiana voters are free to uphold natural marriage in their state’s public policy,” said Tony Perkins of Family Policy Council in Washington, D.C. “He rightly declared that the Courts have no authority to unilaterally change the definition of our most fundamental social institution.”

In judge Feldman opinion all the other judges were wrong…

The depth of passion inherent in the issues before this Court defies definition. That federal courts thus far have joined in the hopeful chorus that the tide is turning seems ardent and is an arguably popular, indeed, poignant, outcome (whether or not credibly constitutionally driven). Perhaps, in the wake of today's blurry notion of evolving understanding, the result is ordained. 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. Perhaps that is the next frontier, the next phase of some "evolving understanding of equality," where what is marriage will be explored. And as plaintiffs vigorously remind, there have been embattled times when the federal judiciary properly inserted itself to correct a wrong in our society. But that is an incomplete answer to today's social issue.

He goes on to say,

For example, 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? All such unions would undeniably be equally committed to love and caring for one another, just like the plaintiffs.

Notice the dig he puts in about us, “What about a transgender spouse? Is such a union same-gender or male-female?”

In his ruling judge Feldman said,

Plaintiffs also add that they suffer discrimination based on gender. Plaintiffs, as do most other federal courts confronted with these issues, equate this case with Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 8 (1967), where the Supreme Court rightly condemned racial discrimination even though Virginia's antimiscegenation marriage laws equally applied to both races. Plaintiffs' argument betrays itself. Heightened scrutiny was warranted in Loving because the Fourteenth Amendment expressly condemns racial discrimination as a constitutional evil; in short, the Constitution specifically bans differentiation based on race.

Um… judge, that is not what the Fourteen Amendment says, there is no mention of race in the amendment. Judge just to refresh your memory the Fourteen Amendment says “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” I do not see anything that says that it only applies to race.

  Robicheaux v. Caldwell