Judge throws out Louisiana gay marriage ban [ voters gave OK Sep 18 78% - 22% ]

AP via CNN ^ | October 6, 2004

[rudypoot]

So much for caring what the people want.

[zarf]

LOL! This entire issue has become a predictable judicial comedy.

[DM1]

this is what we can look forward to if Kerry wins
Authoratarian fascist judges

[Diogenesis]

Does the New York Times own this judge too?

[shankbear]

Activist judges really don't give a hoot about the real will of the people. That judge is a disgrace and a joke.

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

Let's save money and do away with legislatures and elections!

Let the media mullahs call the shots for liberal taliban judges.

[Carling]

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>

[bin2baghdad]

I don't understand how a judge can declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional? How can the constitution be unconstitutional?

[kc125]

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.

[caisson71]

"Let them eat cake" I guess.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Marriages and civil unions, what's the difference between them?

[Mike Fieschko]

How can the constitution be unconstitutional?

The article isn't clear about this. Right on Red blog has a comment saying that "it was worded in such a way that it couldn’t [shouldn't have been?] be placed on the ballot."

[kc125]

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.

[Mike Fieschko]

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.

But there were court challenges before the vote.

Why wasn't that issue addressed at that time? It would not have been premature to decide that issue before the election.

[ProudVet77]

Is the LA legislature repuublican or democratic?

[kc125]

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.

[Mike Fieschko]

Thanks. I searched pages for "marriage" back until 3:00 pm today, but I must not have gone back far enough.

Did a search just on the pages, since the search function is broken.

[kc125]

The court held exactly that...the issue was not yet "ripe" b/c the amendment didnt pass.

[MamaLucci]

How do you say "impeach" in Cajun? ;)