Judiciary once again oversteps boundry

Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Judge: "This law is null & void. If you want this you must pass a Constitutional Amendment."

LawMaker: "Ok"

Judge: "Fooled ya."

A district court judge today threw out an amendment to the Louisiana Constitution banning same-sex marriage that was passed by 78% percent of the state's voters.

In rejecting the amendment, which won overwhelming support at the polls Sept. 18, Judge William Morvant said it failed to pass constitutional muster because the it had more than one purpose – banning both same-sex marriage and civil unions.
Click to expand...

The people spoke. Overwhelmingly. They followed the law & passed a change to their state's Constitution. While I haven't looked into their legislative process, in most places 3/4's vote will change the law.

No agenda huh?

WND
 
I had to check here to find out whether it was a state or federal judge that made the ruling. It was a state judge. Because of that, it makes me wonder how the court would have the authority to overthrow a part of the constitution, since the court's purpose is to uphold the constitution and make sure laws are consistent with it. If it were a federal judge, it would be understandable, because a start constitution wouldn't be able to go against the federal one.
 
It's possible that in order to change the state constitution the legislature may have to get involved too & the judge is doing his/her best to stop that potential.
 
Even I will say thats not something that should have been done. 78% is the majority and it should stick.
 
Jan 19, 1:06 PM (ET)

By ALAN SAYRE

NEW ORLEANS (AP) - 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.
Click to expand...

source
 
Thulsa Doom said:
Yeah then keep him from getting married... how DARE judges not allow mob rule!! The hubris!
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: :p

How noble of you to come to that 'judges' aid, though. Just remember...it's a two-edged sword, and if the courts had been overwhelmingly conservative, and struck down a law supporting gay civil unions, you'd be arguing for the other way. Don't hate the player, TD...:grinno:
 
Id say the case is pretty cut and dry. It clearly states that you cant inact a constitutional amendment that has more then one purpose. They tried to bite off more then they could chew by not only banning gay marriage but ALSO banning civil unions AND EVEN legal recognition of domestic partnerships (do you support such a ban by the way gato...). Rules are rules. If you want to attack gay marriage then dont be a glutton and attack every other aspect of equal rights for gays. This wont be the end of this you can be sure. I think in the end if the mob wants to keep its descrimination legally untouchable youll have to seperate out gay marriage from anything else. The same will be true in a number of states that passed these things this past November. Get ready for a lot more of this in the courts.
 
Thulsa Doom said:
Id say the case is pretty cut and dry. It clearly states that you cant inact a constitutional amendment that has more then one purpose. They tried to bite off more then they could chew by not only banning gay marriage but ALSO banning civil unions AND EVEN legal recognition of domestic partnerships (do you support such a ban by the way gato...). Rules are rules. If you want to attack gay marriage then dont be a glutton and attack every other aspect of equal rights for gays. This wont be the end of this you can be sure. I think in the end if the mob wants to keep its descrimination legally untouchable youll have to seperate out gay marriage from anything else. The same will be true in a number of states that passed these things this past November. Get ready for a lot more of this in the courts.
Click to expand...

While I will agree with the way you phrased your reply, I reserve to disagree with the spirit in which it was written. Yes, the law was badly written, but the fact remains...if this was a conservative judge ruling to overturn a law duly voted on by the public, and enacted by the legislature permitting gay marriage, you'd be taking Gonz's stance. BTW...as for my supporting such a ban, I think civil unions should be allowed, but that's not the way the law was written, and you can't choose which part of a law you agree with, and which you don't, because the penalty would be the same whether you break part, or all, of said law.
 
It did not have more than one purpose. They had to word it the way they did to make it valid. Had they neglected to add "...and civil unions", it was a built in loophole.

Some folks must not like it when the loopholes are removed...
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
It did not have more than one purpose. They had to word it the way they did to make it valid. Had they neglected to add "...and civil unions", it was a built in loophole.

Some folks must not like it when the loopholes are removed...
Click to expand...

how is a civil union a loophole exactly? its another animal entirely. As are domestic partnership laws.

Its pretty simple here folks. Legally you CANT have an amendment to the constitution (federally or on many state levels) that trys to pick off several things all at once. It is called a SINGLE-SUBJECT REQUIREMENT and it is real. Do you think I made this up or something?

So... if you want to ban gay marriage then you make a constitutional amendment particularly about gay MARRIAGE. If you are nazi enough to actually want to ban civil unions and domestic partnerships then you gotta make seperate ones for those also. The reason they tried to jam it all into one was because the creators knew banning gay marriage would be popular in Louisiana more so then the other two which are more draconian and could effect heterosexual relationships as well. Now you can add pork to a spending bill but you CANT do shit like that on a constitutional amendment. Why not just seperate them out?
 
It was and is my understanding that "civil union" is nothing more than a PC phrase designed to replace/circumvent the word "marriage". Thus, to ban gay marriage would not prevent gay civil unions ceremonies being loopholed out of the law.
 
Thulsa Doom said:
Yeah then keep him from getting married... how DARE judges not allow mob rule!! The hubris!
Click to expand...


:lol: Are you on the DNC mailing list too? Seems like you have gravitas :D
 
Thulsa Doom said:
Legally you CANT have an amendment to the constitution (federally or on many state levels) that trys to pick off several things all at once.
Click to expand...


Wrong-O. Look at the Ist Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The PURPOSE of a constitutional amendment is prescisely to enact law that cannot be overturned. It is feasible the Feds can overrule this amendment but the state of Louisiana is hereby forever locked by this rule of law UNLESS they change the state Constitution,
 
Wait yer telling me Im wrong that Louisiana has a single subject requirement clause in regards to constitutional amendments?

pardon me for a moment...

*2 minutes later*

ARTICLE XIII. CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION

§1. Amendments

Section 1.(A) Procedure. An amendment to this constitution may be proposed by joint resolution at any regular session of the legislature, but the resolution shall be prefiled, at least ten days before the beginning of the session, in accordance with the rules of the house in which introduced. An amendment to this constitution may be proposed at any extraordinary session of the legislature if it is within the objects of the call of the session and is introduced in the first five calendar days thereof. If two-thirds of the elected members of each house concur in the resolution, pursuant to all of the procedures and formalities required for passage of a bill except submission to the governor, the secretary of state shall have the proposed amendment published once in the official journal of each parish within not less than thirty nor more than sixty days preceding the election at which the proposed amendment is to be submitted to the electors. Each joint resolution shall specify the statewide election at which the proposed amendment shall be submitted. Special elections for submitting proposed amendments may be authorized by law.

(B) Form of Proposal. A proposed amendment shall have a title containing a brief summary of the changes proposed; shall be confined to one object; and shall set forth the entire article, or the sections or other subdivisions thereof, as proposed to be revised or only the article, sections, or other subdivisions proposed to be added.
Click to expand...

However, the legislature may propose, as one amendment, a revision of an entire article of this constitution which may contain multiple objects or changes.
Click to expand...

Before you jump on this line please note that this is not relevant in this situation since the amendment was not a REVISION of a constitutional article. It is a new submission.

A section or other subdivision may be repealed by reference. When more than one amendment is submitted at the same election, each shall be submitted so as to enable the electors to vote on them separately.

(C) Ratification. If a majority of the electors voting on the proposed amendment approve it, the governor shall proclaim its adoption, and it shall become part of this constitution, effective twenty days after the proclamation, unless the amendment provides otherwise. A proposed amendment directly affecting not more than five parishes or areas within not more than five parishes shall become part of this constitution only when approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon in the state and also a majority of the electors voting thereon in each affected parish. However, a proposed amendment directly affecting not more than five municipalities, and only such municipalities, shall become part of this constitution only when approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon in the state and also a majority of the electors voting thereon in each such municipality.
Click to expand...

Your witness...
 
TD said:
(federally or on many state levels)
Click to expand...

You didn't say Louisiana. You said (see above). I didn't go read the LA Constitution, since I don't much care what it says since I don't reside there.

Stopping homosexuals from marriage & stopping homosexuals form attaining marriage like rights & priveleges can be argued to be of one subject. It's not like, no marriage for gays & guns for everybody or something.
 
And let me just throw in the actual argument we are talking about so we can all see it with our own eyes:

The Louisiana initiative stated:

that marriage in this state shall consist of the union of one man and one woman, the legal incidents of marriage shall not be conferred on a member of any union other than such union, and 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 that is not the union of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...

From Article XII, Section 15.

The original plaintiff argued he would have liked to vote against same-sex marriage but in favor of same-sex civil union but that such a vote was not possible due to the complexity of the voter initiative. The judge ruled in his favor citing that it is in indeed "constitutionally flawed". The Supreme Court of Louisiana reversed this stating essentially "looks good to us". Or more specifially:

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
Click to expand...

Many legal experts are at a loss to see how they could state this when it clearly isnt. But hey thats Louisiana politics eh...

Anyway, the next phase is to appeal to the Federal Court of course on the grounds that it goes against the US Constitution. So no Gonz its not a done deal lock stock and barrel. Those in opposition will study the language of the decision and decide if they want to take it to the next level.
 
Remember, Louisiana already had laws on the books making gay marriage illegal BEFORE all this. Yet they made a constitutional amendment to keep those awful Massachusetts queers from flooding their state (for some apparent reason) and demanding their marriages be recognized. That was the ORIGINAL motive for this. NOT to ban any conceivable form of coupling or minor legal recognition of rights for gay couples. So they are way over reaching what they originally stated was the purpose. A perfect example of stealth activism to limit the rights of others because we think they are icky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top