Full Version: Louisiana Marriage Amendment
QUOTE
Louisiana residents breathed a sigh of relief last week after being largely spared from the storm surge generated by Hurricane Ivan. But on Saturday, Democratic, Republican, and Independent voters joined forces to create their own political storm surge, a tsunami of support for Louisiana's Marriage Protection Amendment.
The amendment, which would place Louisiana's statutory definition of marriage into the state constitution and out of the hands of activist judges or public officials, was approved by a seldom seen margin of 78% to 22%. The effort to protect the Bayou State's definition of marriage was both as broad as Lake Pontchartrain and deep and powerful as the Mississippi, inundating every Louisiana parish by substantial margins.
<snip>
Indeed, support for the marriage amendment by Democratic and African-American voters was decisive (Orleans Parish has a two-thirds black voting population). This continued a trend of strong Democratic voter support for such amendments first noted by press analysts in Missouri, which on August 3rd approved a weaker version of a marriage amendment by 71 to 29 percentage points.
<snip>
[S]ome of those who have advocated for a revision of marriage's definition beyond one man and one woman promised more court challenges to keep Louisiana voter's decision from taking effect. They had mounted a full court press in the courts prior to the vote, filing as many as three simultaneous lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions seeking to derail a public vote.
(source)
The amendment, which would place Louisiana's statutory definition of marriage into the state constitution and out of the hands of activist judges or public officials, was approved by a seldom seen margin of 78% to 22%. The effort to protect the Bayou State's definition of marriage was both as broad as Lake Pontchartrain and deep and powerful as the Mississippi, inundating every Louisiana parish by substantial margins.
<snip>
Indeed, support for the marriage amendment by Democratic and African-American voters was decisive (Orleans Parish has a two-thirds black voting population). This continued a trend of strong Democratic voter support for such amendments first noted by press analysts in Missouri, which on August 3rd approved a weaker version of a marriage amendment by 71 to 29 percentage points.
<snip>
[S]ome of those who have advocated for a revision of marriage's definition beyond one man and one woman promised more court challenges to keep Louisiana voter's decision from taking effect. They had mounted a full court press in the courts prior to the vote, filing as many as three simultaneous lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions seeking to derail a public vote.
(source)
Topics of debate:
Why is there a tidal wave of support for this amendment?
Is this a sign of the gay rights front loosing the political war?
What are the implications of this precedent?
Why is there a tidal wave of support for this amendment?
To answer that, one only has to go to Louisiana and see for themselves. I mean seriously, and this isn't even meant to be a generalization or a stereotype. I grew up in Texas and have travelled there quite a few times to go to New Orleans, attend weddings, etc. The gay population isn't accepted anywhere (that I know of) besides New Orleans where they have a small neighborhood. I always got the feeling that even people who lived in New Orleans just barely tolerated the gay population in the first place.
If you go anywhere else in the state it is about as conservative and religious as you can get. There are still quite a few areas that are openly racist, the KKK even has a pretty decent following there from what I remember. Let's not forget what state David Duke calls home. Therefore it should come as no surprise when put to a vote that the population overwhelmingly votes for an amendment banning gay marriage. That says absolutely nothing.
Is this a sign of the gay rights front loosing the political war?
Nope, why would a ban in an extremely conservative state mean anything in this political and cultural war?
There are only a few ways that those who are against gay marriage can even begin to claim victory:
- An amendment passed in a liberal state
- An amendment passed on the federal level
- A decision in the supreme court that gay couples have no legal standing
What are the implications of this precedent?
It may cause a few other conservative states to consider an amendment to their respective constitutions, but that is all. This isn't a legal case, another state can't cite the fact that an amendment was passed in Louisiana so they should have one too -- they have to go through the process. If their legislature and their voters feel an amendment is necessary it will be passed.
All of this is completely meaningless because the supreme court will eventually have to rule on this issue and their decision will either confirm or undo all of the work that Louisiana has done.
The implication of this is that a case or several cases could make it to a federal court and eventually the surpreme court and that is where the only decision that counts will be made.
To answer that, one only has to go to Louisiana and see for themselves. I mean seriously, and this isn't even meant to be a generalization or a stereotype. I grew up in Texas and have travelled there quite a few times to go to New Orleans, attend weddings, etc. The gay population isn't accepted anywhere (that I know of) besides New Orleans where they have a small neighborhood. I always got the feeling that even people who lived in New Orleans just barely tolerated the gay population in the first place.
If you go anywhere else in the state it is about as conservative and religious as you can get. There are still quite a few areas that are openly racist, the KKK even has a pretty decent following there from what I remember. Let's not forget what state David Duke calls home. Therefore it should come as no surprise when put to a vote that the population overwhelmingly votes for an amendment banning gay marriage. That says absolutely nothing.
Is this a sign of the gay rights front loosing the political war?
Nope, why would a ban in an extremely conservative state mean anything in this political and cultural war?
There are only a few ways that those who are against gay marriage can even begin to claim victory:
- An amendment passed in a liberal state
- An amendment passed on the federal level
- A decision in the supreme court that gay couples have no legal standing
What are the implications of this precedent?
It may cause a few other conservative states to consider an amendment to their respective constitutions, but that is all. This isn't a legal case, another state can't cite the fact that an amendment was passed in Louisiana so they should have one too -- they have to go through the process. If their legislature and their voters feel an amendment is necessary it will be passed.
All of this is completely meaningless because the supreme court will eventually have to rule on this issue and their decision will either confirm or undo all of the work that Louisiana has done.
QUOTE
[S]ome of those who have advocated for a revision of marriage's definition beyond one man and one woman promised more court challenges to keep Louisiana voter's decision from taking effect. They had mounted a full court press in the courts prior to the vote, filing as many as three simultaneous lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions seeking to derail a public vote.
The implication of this is that a case or several cases could make it to a federal court and eventually the surpreme court and that is where the only decision that counts will be made.
QUOTE
Is this a sign of the gay rights front loosing the political war?
Nope, why would a ban in an extremely conservative state mean anything in this political and cultural war?
There are only a few ways that those who are against gay marriage can even begin to claim victory:
- An amendment passed in a liberal state
- An amendment passed on the federal level
- A decision in the supreme court that gay couples have no legal standing
Nope, why would a ban in an extremely conservative state mean anything in this political and cultural war?
There are only a few ways that those who are against gay marriage can even begin to claim victory:
- An amendment passed in a liberal state
- An amendment passed on the federal level
- A decision in the supreme court that gay couples have no legal standing
There is no way, from an single amendment, in a single State that one could make the case that this is a sign that "the gay right front is loosing the political war?, So the question is a bit vague.
But as for the above comment. I believe a DOMA passed in Minnesota, a "progressive" state, as well as California, both by wide margins. If I remember right, the California vote was 81% to 19%.
QUOTE
If you go anywhere else in the state it is about as conservative and religious as you can get. There are still quite a few areas that are openly racist, the KKK even has a pretty decent following there from what I remember. Let's not forget what state David Duke calls home. Therefore it should come as no surprise when put to a vote that the population overwhelmingly votes for an amendment banning gay marriage. That says absolutely nothing.
Then what does that say about California. Not only a liberal state, but the largest of the States?
QUOTE
Why is there a tidal wave of support for this amendment?...
If you go anywhere else in the state it is about as conservative and religious as you can get. There are still quite a few areas that are openly racist, the KKK even has a pretty decent following there from what I remember. Let's not forget what state David Duke calls home. Therefore it should come as no surprise when put to a vote that the population overwhelmingly votes for an amendment banning gay marriage. That says absolutely nothing.
It says something far more relevant than you seem to be willing to admit. Blacks (are they racist members of the KKK too?) are voting against gay marriage, which means that they aren't buying the line that "gay marriage is about civil rights." Of course, as far as you're concerned, it says that Louisiana is overrun with homophobes and bigots. If you go anywhere else in the state it is about as conservative and religious as you can get. There are still quite a few areas that are openly racist, the KKK even has a pretty decent following there from what I remember. Let's not forget what state David Duke calls home. Therefore it should come as no surprise when put to a vote that the population overwhelmingly votes for an amendment banning gay marriage. That says absolutely nothing.
QUOTE
Is this a sign of the gay rights front loosing the political war?
Nope, why would a ban in an extremely conservative state mean anything in this political and cultural war?
There are only a few ways that those who are against gay marriage can even begin to claim victory:
- An amendment passed in a liberal state
Nope, why would a ban in an extremely conservative state mean anything in this political and cultural war?
There are only a few ways that those who are against gay marriage can even begin to claim victory:
- An amendment passed in a liberal state
Hawaii : Statute
"Marriages between a man and a woman legal in the country where contracted shall be held legal in the courts of this State"; Haw. Rev Stat. ' 572-3
Amendment
"The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples"; Hi. Const. Art 1, ' 23
Alaska
Statute
"A same-sex relationship may not be recognized by the state as being entitled to the benefits of marriage."; Alaska Stat. 25.05.013 (
Amendment
"To be valid or recognized in this state, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman"; Alaska Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 25
Delaware
Statute
"A marriage is prohibited and void between a person and his or her ancestor, descendant, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, first cousin or between persons of the same gender";Del. Stat. Title 13 ' 101
Arizona
Statute
"Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited"; Ariz.Rev. Stat. Ann. ' 25-101
California
Statute
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"; Ca. Fam. Sec. 308.5
ColoradoCO
Statute
"(1) ...a marriage is valid in this state if: ...(
it is only between one man and one woman"; Co. Stat. Sec. 14-2-104FloridaFL
Statute
"(1) Marriages between persons of the same sex entered into in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, or relationships between persons of the same sex which are treated as marriages in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, are not recognized for any purpose in this state." AND "(3) For purposes of interpreting any state statute or rule, the term "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the term "spouse" applies only to a member of such a union"; Florida Stat. Ann. ' 741.212
Indiana
Statute
"Sec. 1. (a) Only a female may marry a male. Only a male may marry a female. (
A marriage between persons of the same gender is void in Indiana even if the marriage is lawful in the place where it is solemnized"; Ind. Code ' 31-11-1-1Iowa
Statute
"1. Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid."; Ia. Stat. ' 595.2
Kansas
Statute
"The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract between two parties who are of opposite sex. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void"; Kansas Stat. Ann. ' 23-101
Michigan
Statute
"Sec. 1. Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting that unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state"; Mich. St. ' 551.1
Minnesota
Statute
"Marriage, so far as its validity in law is concerned, is a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties, capable in law of contracting, is essential. Lawful marriage may be contracted only between persons of the opposite sex and only when a license has been obtained as provided by law and when the marriage is contracted in the presence of two witnesses and solemnized by one authorized, or whom one or both of the parties in good faith believe to be authorized, so to do. Marriages subsequent to April 26, 1941 , not so contracted shall be null and void"; Minn. Stat. Ann. ' 517.01
Ohio
Statute
A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman... Any marriage between persons of the same sex is against the strong public policy of this state. Any marriage between persons of the same sex shall have no legal force or effect in this state and, if attempted to be entered into in this state, is void ab initio and shall not be recognized by this state.
Pennsylvania
Statute
"It is hereby declared to be the strong and longstanding public policy of this Commonwealth that marriage shall be between one man and one woman. A marriage between persons of the same sex which was entered into in another state or foreign jurisdiction, even if valid where entered into, shall be void in this Commonwealth"; Pa. Stat. 23 Pa. C.S.A. ' 1704
Washington
Statute
"Marriage is a civil contract between a male and a female... "; Wa. Stat. 26.04.010 "(1) Marriages in the following cases are prohibited: © When the parties are persons other than a male and a female"; Wa. Stat. 26.04.020
Are you going to argue that Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania are "extremely conservative" states? As is Missouri, right?
QUOTE
All of this is completely meaningless because the supreme court will eventually have to rule on this issue and their decision will either confirm or undo all of the work that Louisiana has done.
Are you comfortable with that idea?QUOTE
QUOTE
[S]ome of those who have advocated for a revision of marriage's definition beyond one man and one woman promised more court challenges to keep Louisiana voter's decision from taking effect. They had mounted a full court press in the courts prior to the vote, filing as many as three simultaneous lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions seeking to derail a public vote.
The implication of this is that a case or several cases could make it to a federal court and eventually the surpreme court and that is where the only decision that counts will be made.
Well, hell, why bother to vote then if the only decision that counts is that of 9 old farts in black robes! 
Why is there a tidal wave of support for this amendment?
Is this a sign of the gay rights front loosing the political war?
What are the implications of this precedent?
Fist off I think this quote sums up the reason for such support of an amendment:
I am of course assuming that more elders vote than young people, which I think is a decently safe assumption.
One thing I would like to mention is that until 1948 interracial couples were not allowed to marry. Today if we were asked whether or not interracial couples should marry, a majority would say yes; while 75 years ago a majority would've said no. This draws parallels, to me, for gay marriage. Skin color was determined not to be a defining factor in marriage, so why should gender be any different?
Finally I'll say this in regards to Bikerdad's post: let the states make their mistakes. Many laws have been enacted and repealed.
Time Article
Edited to add source.
Is this a sign of the gay rights front loosing the political war?
What are the implications of this precedent?
Fist off I think this quote sums up the reason for such support of an amendment:
QUOTE
Polls show younger Americans are far more supportive of gay marriage than their elders.
I am of course assuming that more elders vote than young people, which I think is a decently safe assumption.
One thing I would like to mention is that until 1948 interracial couples were not allowed to marry. Today if we were asked whether or not interracial couples should marry, a majority would say yes; while 75 years ago a majority would've said no. This draws parallels, to me, for gay marriage. Skin color was determined not to be a defining factor in marriage, so why should gender be any different?
Finally I'll say this in regards to Bikerdad's post: let the states make their mistakes. Many laws have been enacted and repealed.
QUOTE
In 1948 California was the first state to forbid a prohibition on interracial marriage, but the U.S. Supreme Court did not conclusively strike down such barriers until 1967
Time Article
Edited to add source.
QUOTE(redliner1989 @ Sep 23 2004, 03:41 AM)
But as for the above comment. I believe a DOMA passed in Minnesota, a "progressive" state, as well as California, both by wide margins. If I remember right, the California vote was 81% to 19%.
I can't speak for Minnesota (but I personally wouldn't consider them "progressive" by my definition anyway), but the measure in California was passed several years ago. I think that if you put the same thing to vote in this upcoming election, it wouldn't pass.
You can't make comparisons from several years ago, because the whole homosexual marriage thing is definitely more visible today and therefore more people have been educated and have accepted homosexuals.
QUOTE(Bikerdad)
Blacks (are they racist members of the KKK too?) are voting against gay marriage, which means that they aren't buying the line that "gay marriage is about civil rights."
And once again it doesn't really matter Bikerdad, they live in Louisiana and therefore are going to hold the same values as others in the state. Are you suggesting that african americans hold the same beliefs every where they live, seems a little bit of a racist generalization to me don't you think?
QUOTE(Bikerdad)
Are you comfortable with that idea?
Completely, why wouldn't I be? This is a civil rights issue, plain and simple. There are absolutely no credible arguments against it. It is fundamentally no different than the time when interracial marriages were not allowed in the country or when african americans were second class citizens. Once it reaches the supreme court I'm pretty sure they'll find in favor of homosexuals.
Oh, and all those statutes you cited for different states, also not important because that is in the past. Of course homosexual marriage isn't allowed right now and it makes sense that many states have laws on the books preventing it. A great many of them were passed quite a while ago when this wasn't an issue at the edge of public consciousness. Your argument that there are laws in all states so that makes it ok is the same as suggesting that half the union accepted slavery so it was ok - it is completely flawed.
QUOTE
Why is there a tidal wave of support for this amendment?
78% would seem like a tidal wave, but when you consider that 796,975 people voted, and the state has over 4.4 million people, that puts the "tidal" wave into context. From reading the article, you would think that most everyone in that state is on board with the amendment, that is clearly not the case. In reality, a minority of people voted and decided this issue for now.
QUOTE
Is this a sign of the gay rights front loosing the political war?
I don't know, there were various times in which it look as if the anti-slave factions would lose the political war. Turner's rebellion, various elections, and supreme court decisions stunted, but did not end, the ultimate goal which was eventually obtained. Likewise, we have supreme court decisions and elections that have stymied, but not stopped, those who are for gay rights.
What are the implications of this precedent?
Virtually none. People in New York or California(i.e.-where people actually live) are not going to turn back the clock so to speak in terms of gay civil rights just because Louisiana does. If anything, it makes them look regressive and simply "not with it" culturally.
Just a little update Louisiana judge throws the gay marriage ban out. 
Judge throws out Louisiana gay marriage ban
Judge throws out Louisiana gay marriage ban
QUOTE
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.
QUOTE
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.
QUOTE
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.
I'd say that this recent news reinforces what I have said in so many words in virtually every single one of the threads we have had dealing with gay marriage or civil unions. The harder people fight them, the more cases will end up in court and eventually the supreme court will have to hear the case(s). Were it heard in the supreme court today I think gay marriage would be allowed, but who knows what could happen if a justice retires before the case is heard.
Therefore the implications of this precedent are - the people who are against gay marriage are ironically speeding along the end of their own way of thinking.
Therefore the implications of this precedent are - the people who are against gay marriage are ironically speeding along the end of their own way of thinking.
QUOTE
In reality, a minority of people voted and decided this issue for now.
and, from the tone of your post, it sounds like you disagree with the methodology.Do you disagree with the method wherein the smallest minority possible, one, decides the issue?
I'm still confused how a judge, any judge, can logically find a constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional. Still, in this instance an argument has been made that the process of amending the constitution was not followed. The only problem with that is this: in order to do so you have to maintain, convincingly, that there is somehow something different between a 'civil union' and a legal marriage.
What, exactly, is the difference?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.