Posted on 02/16/2006 5:29:41 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
Boise, Idaho (AHN) - A proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Idaho has passed the State Senate and will go to voters this November.
If approved, it would mean that in Idaho, "a marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized."
Opponents argued in court that a constitutional amendment isn't necessary because state law already defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Supporters say the amendment would prevent judges from overturning that law.
Last week, the measure passed the Idaho House 53-17 vote. The Senate vote was 26-9.
Any other states doing this, come November, 2006? There were twelve state referendums on the ballot in the 2004 election defining marriage as "one man and one woman."
Pushback's a b*tch, Baby. ;)
A referendum passed (by nearly 4 to 1) an amendment to the Nebraska Constitution a few years ago saying the same thing. A judge threw it out saying it discriminated against gay people. It is being appealed.
"A judge threw it out ..."
What a surprise, Eh? You know, I hate messing with our Constitutions. I mean, I am GRATEFUL for many of our amendments on the national level, but things are just so whacked these days that I'm really happy to see States sitting up and paying attention.
You know, while things don't ALWAYS go our way, I'm always amazed at how level-headed and clear-thinking people at the State levels can be about some issues.
Enough is enough. WHY does a tiny freak minority of our population get all the face-time and get pandered to? It's absolutely insane. I'm glad States are doing something about it.
(And my sister is a lesbian and works for a gay-advocacy group. You'd LOVE to be a fly on the wall when we have some of our conversations, LOL!)
Dumb**** judge.
whether this passes or not, the fact remains, the ultimate problem has not been stopped and that is the immorality between the two men or two women. The marraige thing is simply a piece of paper.
Good news indeed.
TN and SC have anti-gay marriage amendements on the ballot this fall too. The ACLU is trying to get a judge to stop the TN ballot from being voted on. Strange, the ACLU wants felons to vote, but won't allow working class families to vote on emotional social issues.
Wow! That's great to hear!
You know, for all of my complaints against President Bush and what he hasn't done to please me, he has somehow managed to turn this ship around to a great extent.
Please! Let there be a TRUE Conservative on the docket come 2008. I mean, with even just a psuedo-conservative on board, we've done so much!
I do like him. And I adore Laura, of course. I just want our borders CLOSED and I want the spending to STOP. I don't want ANY pandering to the MINORITY party. If they want control, let them win the d@mn elections!
And that's 'Life in My Perfect World.' :)
WAY TA GO, I-DA-HO!!!
I had the pleasure of participating in the latest state referendum on this issue here in Texas last November which won by over 75% of the vote (over 3 to 1). I hope you guys get the same great feeling we had down here when the smokescreens and red herrings of the radicals get pushed aside in a clear resonation of the truth of the matter.
For the life of me I can't understand the most common such argument of opponents - that "there are already laws in place prohibiting same sex unions and such an amendment is unnecessary." Then what's it going to change? Were you as militant in your obfuscation of the issue before DOMA? Why now? The specious arguments being purported clearly indicated the desperation of a side losing the debate.
A judge can't find a constitutional amendment (referendum?) unconstitutional.
Read up on Mike Pence!! Pence08.com and MikePence.com
More good news! : )
Same thing was "overwhelmingly" voted for by CA voters, of all people, and the Ninth Circuit (I think) overruled the very voter decision, despite the huge support of voters for the measure!
States decide, courts "overrule" voter/state decisions.
This is one issue that the voters in ALL states have to continue to assert, along with throwing out activist judges who are mostly there because they support the Homosexual Agenda and not the voters.
Well...I still don't understand how the voter decision in CA was "overruled" as being unconstitutional, at least that's the excuse that the judge used to declare it so and throw out the voter decision to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.
I realize we're not discussing CA, however, sorry for the tangent. GOOD LUCK AND CONGRATULATIONS to IDAHO! Place is looking more and more appealing every passing year.
There are few redder states than Idaho where I live and it's easy for the Republicans to do what's right for the state. I predict overwhelming support for the amendment this fall.
Tell that to the judge. He did.
YES!
The "most Republican" legislature in the nation should be ashamed it took them three years to get a marriage amendment on the ballot in Idaho, of all places.
While even liberal states like Michigan and Oregon approved marriage amendments on the 2004 ballot, Idaho's overwhelmingly Republican state senate rejected the amendment in both 2004 and 2005, and the heavy RINO contingent whined and stomped their feet about being forced by public pressure to finally approve it this year.
The only question in November is whether the amendment will win 60-something, 70-something, or 80-something percent of the vote of the people...which will prove how arrogant and elitist were the RINOs who resisted til the end even allowing Idahoans the opportunity to vote.
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.