News & Politics - Louisiana Court OKs Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

*Ledi* · 01-19-2005, 11:24 AM

This makes me sick.

Quote:

NEW ORLEANS - The Louisiana Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously reinstated the anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution that was overwhelmingly approved by voters in September.

The high court reversed a state district judge's ruling in October striking down the amendment on the grounds that it violated a provision of the state constitution requiring that an amendment cover only one subject.

"Each provision of the amendment is germane to the single object of defense of marriage and constitutes an element of the plan advanced to achieve this object," the high court said.

The court's ruling puts the amendment in the constitution.

"We're obviously delighted," said attorney Michael Johnson (news - web sites), who represented the Alliance Defense Fund, which argued for the amendment's legality before the Supreme Court.

The Louisiana Gay and Lesbian Political Action Coalition said a statement would be released shortly.

The amendment was sent to the ballot by the Legislature and approved by 78 percent of the voters on Sept. 18.

Legislative backers said that although gay marriages are banned by state law, the amendment was needed to ensure that courts would not authorize the marriages, as had happened in Massachusetts.

In striking down the "defense of marriage" amendment, Judge William Morvant of Baton Rouge had ruled that the amendment also prevented the state from recognizing any legal status for common-law relationships, domestic partnerships and civil unions between both gay and heterosexual couples.

Six of the justices joined in the majority opinion authored by Justice Jeanette Theriot Knoll. The seventh, Chief Justice Pascal Calogero, wrote a concurring opinion.

At issue was a provision of the amendment that stated: "A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be recognized."

Opponents had warned that the amendment went far beyond banning gay marriage and would deny contractual rights to all unmarried couples — whether gay or heterosexual — in such areas as owning property, willing it to heirs, and taking legal care of an incapacitated partner. As a result, they contended, the amendment had more than one object, and therefore could not become part of the constitution.

But the Supreme Court said the each part of the amendment is "germane to the object of `defense of marriage.'"

Eleven other states adopted similar amendments in the fall elections. President George Bush (news - web sites) also has proposed a federal anti-gay marriage amendment.

from here.

Milt Palacio · 01-19-2005, 11:30 AM

A bunch of states have this amendment now I believe. Something like 11 states voted on it in the November election and every one of them voted to ban gay marrriage.

I'm actually kind of happy that the states get to decide. I'm sick of this being a federal issue. If individual states and their voters want to ban gay marriage, that's fine with me.

I just think all gay people should have equal rights. The actual marriage issue is not all that important to me. Equal rights and legal protection is truly what matters.

TokyoNiGHTS · 01-19-2005, 11:55 AM

Is it really surprising that Louisiana would do that? The same state that almost elected David Duke as governor?

alli balli · 01-19-2005, 01:51 PM

The thing is, an amendment like that is unconstitutional under the national Constitution. That's the whole reason they needed to make an anti-gay amendment to the US Constitution - because then discrimination would actually be part of the Constitution. So since the US Consti. is the law of the land, anything in a state consti. that goes against it should be illegal.

So in conclusion, I don't get how they can do this.

ceilirose · 01-19-2005, 01:55 PM

But Bush is backing off of his campaign promise of a Federal Marriage Amendment so maybe it will be left to the states?

Quote:

Bush Upsets Some Supporters
President Is Urged to Press Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

By Jim VandeHei and Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 19, 2005; Page A11

President Bush came under fire from some social conservatives yesterday for saying he will not aggressively lobby the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage during his second term.

Prominent leaders such as Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, and many rank-and-file Bush supporters inundated the White House with phone calls to protest Bush's comments in an interview published Sunday in The Washington Post. "Clearly there is concern" among conservatives, Perkins said. "I believe there is no more important issue for the president's second term than the preservation of marriage."

Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family said, "I am sure [White House] phone lines are lighting up all over."

In the Post interview, Bush, for the first time, said senators have made it clear to him the amendment has no chance of passing unless courts strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which protects states from recognizing same-sex marriages conducted elsewhere. Challenges to the act are pending in state courts from California to Florida.

"It was not articulated that way in the campaign," Perkins complained.

Social conservatives who helped stoke record turnout for Bush in the 2004 election expressed concern that he is dropping the issue he passionately touted during the campaign now that he has been reelected. "The president is willing to spend his political capital on Social Security reform, but the nation is greatly conflicted on that issue," said Minnery, vice president of public policy for Focus on the Family. "The nation is united on marriage. The president's leadership is desperately needed." Minnery and Perkins called the White House to complain about Bush's position.

Some conservatives, however, said they trust Bush will still push for the amendment, despite his remarks. Janet M. LaRue of Concerned Women for America, a Washington-based group that seeks to reverse the nation's "moral decline," said Bush was pointing to the realities of a divided Senate. "I think he was speaking practically about the fact that there are senators who are waiting to see whether the federal Defense of Marriage Act is struck down by a court," a position LaRue called "foolish."

Still, she said, "The responsibility for an amendment lies with Congress, not the White House."

Bush, whose reelection strategy was predicated on record-high turnout among social conservatives, especially evangelical Christians, will need the support of his base to help pressure Congress to approve his domestic agenda over the next four years, Republicans say. While Bush remains wildly popular among most conservatives, some are wondering whether the president will play down social issues in the second term as he seeks to cement a legacy focused more on cutting taxes and creating private Social Security retirement accounts. Last week, some Republicans complained that Bush's choice to head the Republican National Committee, Kenneth B. Mehlman, has picked an abortion rights supporter to be co-chairman.

The president is sensitive to the concerns of social conservatives and has tried to reassure them over the past two days that he remains as committed as ever to outlawing same-sex marriage, according to White House officials. Privately, some Bush advisers say the president is uncomfortable picking divisive political fights over abortion and same-sex marriage that cannot be won.

"The president will continue to advocate the need for a constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters yesterday. "It is something he believes very strongly in. In fact, he has already spent a lot of political capital on getting that initiative moving."

"Remember, in the Senate, you have to have 67 votes to move a constitutional amendment forward," McClellan added. "And there are a number of members of the Senate that have said that they're not open to it until the Defense of Marriage Act faces a serious legal challenge. So that's just talking about the legislative reality."

Social conservatives agree it is an uphill fight in the Senate. But they worry Bush is undermining the chances before the second-term debate even begins. "It seems wrong to signal at the start of the new Congress that nothing is likely to happen," Minnery said. "We would like him to stoke this first, so when there is this precipitating event, we can hit the ground running."

TokyoNiGHTS · 01-19-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceilirose

But Bush is backing off of his campaign promise of a Federal Marriage Amendment so maybe it will be left to the states?

Ofcourse, he's been re elected so he has no more reasons to try to scare middle Americans with the idea that 2 men or women can getting married.

Milt Palacio · 01-19-2005, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TokyoNiGHTS

Ofcourse, he's been re elected so he has no more reasons to try to scare middle Americans with the idea that 2 men or women can getting married.

Of course not.

They want to save it for the 2008 election so they can use it again for votes:

"We're REALLY going to ban gay marriage this time if you vote Republican. We said we would in 2004 but we actually mean it this time!"

Milt Palacio · 01-19-2005, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceilirose

Prominent leaders such as Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, and many rank-and-file Bush supporters inundated the White House with phone calls to protest Bush's comments in an interview published Sunday in The Washington Post. "Clearly there is concern" among conservatives, Perkins said. "I believe there is no more important issue for the president's second term than the preservation of marriage."

That guy has some messed up priorities!

I can think of about 1,000 issues more important than gay marriage: health care, economy, jobs, civil rights, Medicaid, prescription drug costs, the environment, affordable housing, corporate tax reform, college costs, etc.

It's amazing the things the neocons value nowadays. People really need to get their priorities straight.

JW77 · 01-19-2005, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TokyoNiGHTS

Ofcourse, he's been re elected so he has no more reasons to try to scare middle Americans with the idea that 2 men or women can getting married.

I don't know why people assumed that it was more than an election year gimmick anyway. I mean, it wasn't hard to see through.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milt Palacio

That guy has some messed up priorities!

I can think of about 1,000 issues more important than gay marriage: health care, economy, jobs, civil rights, Medicaid, prescription drug costs, the environment, affordable housing, corporate tax reform, college costs, etc.

It's amazing the things the neocons value nowadays. People really need to get their priorities straight.

Well, that's the way you keep your spot as a head of an organization like that. I'm not sure how much money a group like that pulls in, but I'm sure that's a big reason why he would say things like that. Not that I'm saying he doesn't really feel that way, I'm just assuming that there is more to it.

ceilirose · 01-19-2005, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JW77

I don't know why people assumed that it was more than an election year gimmick anyway. I mean, it wasn't hard to see through.

Yes but I think conservative Christian groups really came out for Bush in this election in part because of that. Sure there were other issues but that one was one of the most prominent.

It's sort of a moot point now since he's not going to run for re-election.

JW77 · 01-19-2005, 03:00 PM

I suppose that's what they get for buying into election year comments like that then.

*Circe* · 01-19-2005, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TokyoNiGHTS

Is it really surprising that Louisiana would do that? The same state that almost elected David Duke as governor?

That is EXACTLY what I was thinking when I read that...

~Belle

In Fair Verona · 01-19-2005, 05:42 PM

I'm not surprised either... I don't think anybody should be. Which pair of homosexuals would want to get married in Louisiana anyway? Do any even live there? I'm sure some do, but there are much better places for them. Even if it wasn't officially banned before, it must be hard to find a place there that would marry homosexuals so this doesn't seem that drastic to me.

**Mio** · 01-19-2005, 05:50 PM

Again, another example of states ruling by religion. Someone seriously needs to take the Amendments, photocopy that section, blow it up and send it to the governments.

Grow up already.

*Lauren · 01-19-2005, 05:56 PM

Can I ask a favour? If its going to be a state, put the actual state, not the abbreviation. They're not well known outside America. I read this as L.A. Court...


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Louisiana Court OKs Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment