Posted on 10/06/2004 3:45:12 PM PDT by Mike Fieschko
BATON ROUGE, Louisiana (AP) -- A state judge Tuesday threw out a Louisiana constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, less than three weeks after it was overwhelmingly approved by the voters.
District Judge William Morvant said the amendment was flawed as drawn up by the Legislature because it had more than one purpose: banning not only gay marriage but also civil unions.
Michael Johnson, an attorney for supporters of the amendment, said he will appeal the ruling.
A gay rights group challenged the amendment on several grounds, arguing among other things that combining the question of gay marriage and the issue of civil unions in one ballot question violated state law.
The courts had rejected a similar argument before the September 18 election, saying it was premature.
Some 78 percent of those voting favored the amendment. The vote was part of a national backlash against gay marriage, which followed last year's Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling allowing gay couples to wed.
Proposals to restrict marriage to a man and a woman are on the ballot in November in 11 states: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah. Missouri voters, like those in Louisiana, overwhelmingly approved such an amendment earlier this year.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
So much for caring what the people want.
LOL! This entire issue has become a predictable judicial comedy.
this is what we can look forward to if Kerry wins
Authoratarian fascist judges
Does the New York Times own this judge too?
Activist judges really don't give a hoot about the real will of the people. That judge is a disgrace and a joke.
Let the media mullahs call the shots for liberal taliban judges.
Our slow descent to a judicial, totalitarian state continues.
Why even have elections? We may as will skip the trouble of putting on elections and instead let courts decide what is best for us </sarcasm>
I don't understand how a judge can declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional? How can the constitution be unconstitutional?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1236787/posts
see discussion here
I live in La and support and voted for the ban. This judge (who I do not know) is getting a raw deal though b/c it was the legislature's fault for drafting an amendment they had to know had a dual object, which is prohibited in the La const. This judge was following the law. They should have done it right and we wouldnt be going through this mess. It cost the taxpayers of La. over $300,000 to have the election, plus no telling how much for the court battle. There was a better way....two amendments.
"Let them eat cake" I guess.
Marriages and civil unions, what's the difference between them?
It was a technicality....the legislature put "dual objects" into one amendment, which is prohibited by art 3 sec 15 of the La Const. You cant have marriage ban AND civil union ban in one amendment. I have seriously looked for a way around this, but it's pretty cut and dried. See the other thread I linked in the last post for more discussion on this.
Is the LA legislature repuublican or democratic?
Proposed Amendment No. 1
Act 926 of the 2004 Regular Session
To provide that marriage in this state shall consist of the union of one man and one woman, that legal incidents of marriage shall not be conferred on a member of any union other than such union, AND (caps mine) that the state shall not validate or recognize a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals or any marriage contracted in any other jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman. (ADDS Article XII, Section 15)
First you have a marriage, then you have a "legal status identical to or similiar to that of marriage" which would be the civil union.
The court held exactly that...the issue was not yet "ripe" b/c the amendment didnt pass.
How do you say "impeach" in Cajun? ;)
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.