Posted on 08/15/2004 7:26:03 AM PDT by Flux Capacitor
JUDGE HALTS VOTE ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Amendment may be taken off Sept. 18 ballot; state appeals
A New Orleans judge halted a planned Sept. 18 vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages in Louisiana, but temporarily suspended enforcement of his order to let the state file an appeal with the state Supreme Court.
Civil District Judge Chris Bruno ruled Friday that the amendment would be kept off the Sept. 18 primary ballot because elections are not being held in all parishes.
Bruno's ruling was a clear victory, however slight, for opponents of the proposed amendment who had taken the state to court on the grounds that the state Legislature illegally voted to put the amendment on the ballot. In addition, they argued that the amendment would strip gay men and lesbians of rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
"I feel encouraged," said Tim Hornbeck, president of the Forum for Equality Political Action Committee, the lead plaintiff in the suit. "This seems to be a step in the right direction to get a flawed proposed constitutional amendment off the ballot. . . . I don't know where we'll end up, but I think it'll continue in this fashion. I think our arguments are valid and I am confident in that."
The state promised a tough fight in the state Supreme Court.
"We think that on the merits of this case, the Legislature properly passed this resolution and that the resolution should go to the voters of this state," Assistant Attorney General Roy Mongrue said. "I think the voters should be allowed to vote on it. Our goal obviously is to try to get ultimately the Supreme Court to rule one way or the other on this."
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
Thank God they know better than to expose our society to the risk of allowing its citizens to VOTE the wrong way!
-Dan
It seems to me like all this judge was saying is that you cant have the referendum untill the nov. election, when all parishes are voting. Am I wrong?
Heck, they do that all the time in Florida. If the "Sarasota County Commissioners" want something to pass, thet put ir up for election in March instead of Novemebr. That way they can get all their political hacks, backers and special interests to vote.
Would that make the group FEcalPAC?
That's what it sounds like to me. And if it is on the November ballot, that only helps Dave Vitter and hurts the two RATS running for John Breaux' Senate seat.
Ah, but the referendum isn't on the BALLOT for the November election. Unless I'm mistaken, the Legislature will have to go back and pass this thing all over again -- and that isn't a sure thing -- if this ruling stands. If it was as simple as just pushing the amendment back to November (personally, that's where I'd prefer it anyway), the local gay-marriage lobby wouldn't be so giddy.
This is nothing less than an attempt by a single judge to deny the people of Louisiana from voting on an amendment that is favored by the vast, VAST majority of the state.
-Dan
What a crappy article. It states in the first few paragraphs of the article that the judge stayed the election because it's not being held in all parishes. Even a 2-digit IQ reader would wonder why the election isn't being held statewide, but evidently the thought doesn't cross the mind of the reporter.
A liberal judge sought to thwart the will of Louisiana voters. There's a good chance it will now be placed on the November ballot. Which will wind up helping Bush. The Left and their gay lobby friends manuever will end up costing them dearly.
No, it would make it FEqalPAC.
Good catch, btw....;^)
Civil District Judge Chris Bruno ruled Friday that the amendment would be kept off the Sept. 18 primary ballot because elections are not being held in all parishes.
It seems to me like all this judge was saying is that you cant have the referendum untill the nov. election, when all parishes are voting. Am I wrong?
If that is the case, I agree with it. I thought it was rather strange that Missouri passed a constitutional amendment during a primary election. Not all parties have primaries. A state wide constitutional amendment should only be voted on during a state wide election.
If this amendment makes the November ballot, the RATS are in serious trouble down here. It's not just the Senate election, but Chris John, the 7th District RAT, is giving up his House seat to run for Senate, and that leaves his seat open. This gives us an edge in that race as well. LA's House delegation was 4-3 GOP before Rodney Alexander switched last week, and if the GOP can grab John's seat(highly possible), it goes to 6-1. As for Dubya, only a complete implosion by his campaign would put this state in play.
It is probably too late to get it on the November ballot. I don't know, but that is my guess.
Don't forget the open seat vacated by Billy Tauzin (LA-03). This seat is going to be a dogfight for both parties.
I'd say that the Democrats have the inside track to winning that one. I think Billy Tauzin III will look bad as a candidate as people get to know him. Unfortunately, the Republicans are putting most of their hopes on him because his father's name recognition gives him the early edge. One Democrat has already received endorsements from some prominent Republicans around the Gonzales area.
Bill
best post of the day!
In Missouri, it was the other way around. Gay marriage was scheduled to appear on the Nov. ballot. Democrats sued and got it changed to the Aug. ballot. (It passed with 71% of the vote with a more than 40% voter turnout. The 'rats feared that the high turnout in Nov. would work against them negatively.) What you start realizing once you've listened to these battles for awhile is that the pro gay marriage side is just willing to swing at anything. That strategy has worked well for them. They have been able to argue completely contrary concepts at different times, in different arenas, and no one in the media will call them on it.
As far as the "when" arguament in LA goes, I figure it is a strategy to force a second vote. Any obstacle of delay will do. It gives them time to persuade, though that's not their number one goal. They just need time to allow the courts to act. See, it's easier when you do not actually need to win the hearts and minds of the people. If all you need is ultimately four justices to agree with you, then you concentrate on seeing that judges friendly to your ideology get seated in the right places. That's a challenge, but not nearly as rough as changing the minds of the people or even their accountable, elected representatives.
I'm expecting to hear about cheap sugar any day now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.