visionary Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Uh oh, this could be bad for Democrats. This almost proves the case for a federal constitutional amendment for those who have said (most of the congress) that one is not necessary, because the States can handle it (even though a few of them, including those running for the presidency, did not vote for the DOMAs in the first place.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge throws out Louisiana gay marriage ban 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. The Louisiana Legislature pushed through the proposed ban this spring. Louisiana already had a law against gay marriage, but conservatives warned that unless it was put in the state constitution, a Louisiana court could one day follow the Massachusetts example. Christian conservatives launched a vigorous grassroots campaign to secure passage. Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/05/gay.marriage.ap/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 This is a troubling. Judges are throwing out the will of the people and applying their own interp of what is correct. Exactly what the Lib Dems want... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Originally posted by Johnny 'Luscious' Punani This is a troubling. Judges are throwing out the will of the people and applying their own interp of what is correct. Exactly what the Lib Dems want... Usually, I'd wholeheartedly disagree with a judge overruling any kind of action that is supported by the vast majority of a state's population. This is a different case though. Banning gay marriage is (in my opinion, let's not start another debate about the morals and beliefs behind it) a blatant violation of civil and moral rights. This is like complaining about someone overturning the Jim Crow laws. Remember, the majority of the south was in favor of slavery, and later on in favor of segregation. Some parts still are. That doesn't mean that their intolerance should be made part of the constitution. There's a fine line between correcting a moral wrong and imposing your own will. Personally, I don't think this judge crossed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Here is an odd case: I am UTTERLY hostile to anything in a Constitution(state or federal) that puts LIMITS ON THE PEOPLE(even gay people.) The idea offends me. Government should be out of it altogether. Enforce contracts, but do not prevent contracts, including the spirtual/emotional realm of marriage, gay or otherwise. BUT, I am disgusted by judges who are continually, even when constitutional, making law from the bench or acting like a judicial Mutombo and just swatting things they don't like into the stands and waving their finger. Chopper Dave, I don't think we can pick or choose. Either judges should stick to strict review or they get to become black-robed tyrants who make law despite the commandment that they NOT make law in this country. I don't quite view gays and blacks as being in similar situations BUT I think the tack to take, is that it is antithetical to the idea of our Constitution, that we have limits on the people in consensual behaviors or agreements. Can you imagine another amendment to the constitution: People are free to issue unpopular statements so long as the majority agrees to protect them? Craziness. You know, you can be hostile to gay marriage without proposing such lunacy. make a law, not an amendment, in these cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 we need to let the supreme court decide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin Here is an odd case: I am UTTERLY hostile to anything in a Constitution(state or federal) that puts LIMITS ON THE PEOPLE(even gay people.) The idea offends me. Government should be out of it altogether. Enforce contracts, but do not prevent contracts, including the spirtual/emotional realm of marriage, gay or otherwise. BUT, I am disgusted by judges who are continually, even when constitutional, making law from the bench or acting like a judicial Mutombo and just swatting things they don't like into the stands and waving their finger. I'm kind of have the same position as you. Yeah, it's kind of disgusting when judges do this, but what's even more disgusting is that they have to in order to maintain civil rights. Originally posted by jbooma we need to let the supreme court decide No, we don't. We need to just drop it already. Gay people are people too, and the religious right in this country just proves their intolerance by treating them otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliloquy Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Did you guys read the article? The judge threw it out because it was an improperly written amendment, according to state law. This also wasn't the state Supreme Court, so I'm sure proponents will appeal, or re-write a new amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliloquy Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin I am UTTERLY hostile to anything in a Constitution(state or federal) that puts LIMITS ON THE PEOPLE(even gay people.) The idea offends me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Originally posted by Soliloquy Did you guys read the article? The judge threw it out because it was an improperly written amendment, according to state law. This also wasn't the state Supreme Court, so I'm sure proponents will appeal, or re-write a new amendment. Yeah, but we all know how technicalities work. If this judge was for banning gay marriage, there's a good chance he would have never caught that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Let the majority always get what they want and you will have mob rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Originally posted by Chopper Dave I'm kind of have the same position as you. Yeah, it's kind of disgusting when judges do this, but what's even more disgusting is that they have to in order to maintain civil rights. No, we don't. We need to just drop it already. Gay people are people too, and the religious right in this country just proves their intolerance by treating them otherwise. CHopper Dave, one note. I don't think all of these votes have to do with "religious right." There are agnostics that believe in certain societal institutions for a variety of reasons that oppose gay marriage. AND there ARE reasons to wonder. That said, I'm for people making their own decisions. If we have issues with gay marriage or certain societal customs or sexual deviancy or normalcy or whatever---we should work on that in a private and organized(and individual) manner, not via state law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin CHopper Dave, one note. I don't think all of these votes have to do with "religious right." There are agnostics that believe in certain societal institutions for a variety of reasons that oppose gay marriage. AND there ARE reasons to wonder. That said, I'm for people making their own decisions. If we have issues with gay marriage or certain societal customs or sexual deviancy or normalcy or whatever---we should work on that in a private and organized(and individual) manner, not via state law. Oh I know that there are other people against it. But the driving force in this whole amendment extravaganza lately has been Bush and the religious right. And ditto to the second thing you said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 6, 2004 Author Share Posted October 6, 2004 The argument that the senators made during the marathon debate on the amendment a few months back. I watched a lot of it, and all of the Senators except Ted, agreed that Gay Marriage is unacceptable and that the Massachusetts Supreme court was in error. Half of them however disagreed whether or not something needed to be done now, or ever to make sure that the federal or state courts would not overrule state constitutional amendments. Most of the senators who said it did not need to tbe done, said that it was not necessary, because they said that 1. DOMAs would still cover the problems (which is very shaky legally, from what most on both sides admit) or/and 2. The states were already taking matters into their own hands and would solve any problems by passing state constitutional amendments backed by the will of the people and their state representatives...and they would/could not be overturned. ----------------------------------------------------------------- So far it looks as if at least one of their arguments have been proven mostly false. -------------------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 What is it about gay marriages that scares you guys so much? It is not like there will be more/less gay people, its not like they will be any more/less open, it will not affect anyone other than the gay couple in any way shape or form. Is American turning into a nation of tyrants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Originally posted by visionary The argument that the senators made during the marathon debate on the amendment a few months back. I watched a lot of it, and all of the Senators except Ted, agreed that Gay Marriage is unacceptable and that the Massachusetts Supreme court was in error. Half of them however disagreed whether or not something needed to be done now, or ever to make sure that the federal or state courts would not overrule state constitutional amendments. Most of the senators who said it did not need to tbe done, said that it was not necessary, because they said that 1. DOMAs would still cover the problems (which is very shaky legally, from what most on both sides admit) or/and 2. The states were already taking matters into their own hands and would solve any problems by passing state constitutional amendments backed by the will of the people and their state representatives...and they would/could not be overturned. ----------------------------------------------------------------- So far it looks as if at least one of their arguments have been proven mostly false. -------------------------------------------------- That doesn't matter. There's something intrinsically wrong with telling someone they can't marry the person they love. This once again points the high and mighty nature of many right-wingers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 How can a state judge strike down an amendment to a state constitution? I thought that only a federal court could do that--except in the case of a technicality. Having two purposes to an amendment doesn't seem like a legal technicality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black How can a state judge strike down an amendment to a state constitution? I thought that only a federal court could do that--except in the case of a technicality. Having two purposes to an amendment doesn't seem like a legal technicality. I believe he struck it down because of the state laws themselves interfering with the way it was written. I myself think it should be thrown out and each should be done individually as they have individual meanings.... The Marriage one can go through as that was probably what was on the table in the peoples minds... Adding Civil Unions might be a tad much in mine.... but thats just my :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilgamesh Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin CHopper Dave, one note. I don't think all of these votes have to do with "religious right." There are agnostics that believe in certain societal institutions for a variety of reasons that oppose gay marriage. Yeah, and the deep South has such wonderful examples of morally upright societal institutions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Originally posted by Gilgamesh Yeah, and the deep South has such wonderful examples of morally upright societal institutions... Um, who was talking about the Deep South? Next time, try to think before you post with that kind of contempt. I wasn't talking about the South, I was making a point about issues with homosexuality or certain subcultures in homosexual circles, which go far beyond some kind of religious view on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilgamesh Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin Um, who was talking about the Deep South? Next time, try to think before you post with that kind of contempt. I wasn't talking about the South, I was making a point about issues with homosexuality or certain subcultures in homosexual circles, which go far beyond some kind of religious view on it. No contempt held or intended, I thought you were reflecting on why the voters in Louisiana chose to vote the way they did, citing a need to adhere to a specific social structure (a need which, for many reasons seems to be stonger in the South...see Faulkner) instead of doing so based on a religious convition. I didn't realize you were speaking generally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 All for civil rights, completely against the radical left-wing judges redefining the institution of marriage. Supreme Court needs to decide now because it’s in the court system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 All for civil rights, completely against the radical left-wing judges redefining the institution of marriage. Let the church define the institution of marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliloquy Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Originally posted by luckydevil Let the church define the institution of marriage. The sticking point is that marriages have legal consequences, not just religious ones. Civil unions are an attempt at a comprimise which circumvents the religious issues while preserving the legal ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Civil unions are an attempt at a comprimise which circumvents the religious issues while preserving the legal ones. I realize that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliloquy Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Originally posted by Chopper Dave Yeah, but we all know how technicalities work. It's not a technicality. It's law. And again, this isn't the final say, one way or the other. And lucky, I wasn't trying to be pedantic. Apologizes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.