Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Same-sex marriage ban approved in Louisiana

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Same-sex marriage ban approved in Louisiana

    Same-sex marriage ban approved in Louisiana

    Opponents promise court challenge


    NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (AP) -- Louisiana voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment Saturday banning same-sex marriages and civil unions, one of up to 12 such measures on the ballot around the country this year.

    With 95 percent of precincts reporting, the amendment was winning approval with 79 percent of the vote and support for it was evident statewide.

    Only in New Orleans, home to a politically strong gay community, did the race appear to be close, and even there the amendment was passing by a small margin.

    Christian conservatives had conducted an intense grassroots lobbying campaign for the amendment, which had been expected to pass easily. The civil rights group Forum for Equality had already promised legal action against it.

    "It's gratifying to see the people of Louisiana had an opportunity, as distinguished from judges, having the final say on the issue of whether traditional marriage will continue to be the fundamental institution in our state," said Darrell White, a retired state judge and consultant for Louisiana Family Forum, which pushed for the amendment.

    John Rawls, a lawyer for Forum for Equality, reiterated the group's contention that the amendment does far more than stop gay marriage and that it could affect many private contracts between unmarried couples, gay or straight.

    "I am disappointed that so many Louisianans either did not read the amendment or are so afraid of gays that they voted for this amendment anyway," Rawls said.

    Louisiana already has a law stating that marriage can be only between a man and woman, but supporters of the amendment want to protect that law in the Constitution.

    The amendment also would prohibit state officials and courts from recognizing out-of-state marriages and civil unions between homosexuals.

    Voting machines delivered late to some polls
    Rawls said there were many possible grounds for challenging the results in state and federal court. One appeared Saturday, when voting machines were delivered late to some New Orleans precincts, keeping some from casting ballots for hours.

    State director of elections Frances Sims said at least 59 precincts did not have voting machines when polls opened because officials with New Orleans' clerk of court's office failed to meet drivers who tried to deliver the machines earlier that morning. The problem was solved by midday.

    Julius Green, 58, said he went to his polling place in New Orleans' Bywater neighborhood about 10 a.m. and found no voting machines -- just a crowd.

    "This is ridiculous," Green said. "It makes people feel that their vote don't count."

    Gay rights advocates say the amendment would deprive gay and straight unmarried couples of the right to enter into certain contracts and own property together.

    Supporters of the ban disagree, including LSU law school professor Katherine Spaht, who helped write the amendment. "It doesn't touch private contracts," she said.

    Still, advocates on both sides agreed it will be up to the courts to decide exactly what the amendment does and does not do.

    First, however, courts may have to step in and decide if the amendment was legally adopted. In challenges that went to the state Supreme Court, Forum for Equality said the Legislature made several mistakes in putting the measure together, chief among them adding the ban on civil unions into the amendment. Amendments are supposed to have a single purpose, opponents said.

    That challenge was turned away when the courts ruled that it could not be brought before the election.

    Similar amendments to ban same-sex marriage are on ballots in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah. Petitions in Ohio are still being verified.


    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

    The people have spoken and now the gay rights groups and the liberals want to override the people's choice and have the liberal courts decide things, another example of what is to come if John Kerry and his goons "win" the election, afterall, they think they know whats best for us.

  • #2
    The people have spoken and now the gay rights groups and the liberals want to override the people's choice and have the liberal courts decide things, another example of what is to come if John Kerry and his goons "win" the election, afterall, they think they know whats best for us.
    The majority does not have the right to violate individual rights. The decision should not even be the government's to make. Let Churches make their own decisions, but why a referendum in which straight people get to decide what rights gay people have is fair is beyond me.

    Comment


    • #3
      The people have spoken and now the gay rights groups and the liberals want to override the people's choice and have the liberal courts decide things, another example of what is to come if John Kerry and his goons "win" the election, afterall, they think they know whats best for us.
      I would read this as exactly the opposite. The majority have decided what is best for the minority in an issue that, frankly, has got nothing to do with them. How does two people expressing a committment for each other affect those not involved? It isn't like the heterosexual community is showing a great faith in marriage anyway, looking at the divorce rates!
      at

      Comment


      • #4
        What is the legal and social status of two persons of the same sex who are legally married and they are:

        1. Passing through a State where it is banned.

        2. Go to stay in a State where it is banned.


        "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

        I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

        HAKUNA MATATA

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Ray
          What is the legal and social status of two persons of the same sex who are legally married and they are:

          1. Passing through a State where it is banned.

          2. Go to stay in a State where it is banned.
          Very good questions.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ZFBoxcar
            The majority does not have the right to violate individual rights. The decision should not even be the government's to make. Let Churches make their own decisions, but why a referendum in which straight people get to decide what rights gay people have is fair is beyond me.
            Amen... If we had a non-partisan Supreme Court, this would not even be an issue.
            Originally posted by Ray
            What is the legal and social status of two persons of the same sex who are legally married and they are:

            1. Passing through a State where it is banned.

            2. Go to stay in a State where it is banned.
            If the licence were not recognized, then the marriage would not be either.
            No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
            I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
            even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
            He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

            Comment


            • #7
              Amen... If we had a non-partisan Supreme Court, this would not even be an issue.
              Ah ... but it dont work that way

              Just for the record, I dont know where I stand on gay rights. I dont like the idea of 2 guys or 2 girls kissing or marrying, but I also dont think that they should be opressed and bashed for their sexual views.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ChrisF202
                Just for the record, I dont know where I stand on gay rights. I dont like the idea of 2 guys or 2 girls kissing or marrying, but I also dont think that they should be opressed and bashed for their sexual views.
                Your comments above implied you supported this oppression. Was i misreading? And its an interesting choice of words to use the phrase "sexual views". Was it intentional?
                at

                Comment


                • #9
                  How does gay marriages affect anyone? Isn't this like in violation of some bill of rights or that thing we see on tv getting brought up a lot called the 1st amendment?

                  America has good freedom laws, moves like these would just screw it up. I personally won't make it my business to comment upon someone else's sexual preference. Heck I'd cheer for girl on girl any time :D.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Gay marriage and any marriage is a legal concern. since the state recognizes Marriage as a legal union with certian rights and obligations it also offers certian incentives to promote marriage,

                    such as
                    1. The ability to file joint tax returns
                    2. Social security benifits
                    3. insurance benifits
                    4. inheritance rights when one partner dies

                    The debate has been muddied by people saying that Gays and Lesbians are being denied the right to marry. when simply put most anti-gay marriage bills simply define the LEGAL definition of a marriage.
                    In reality the issue is one of legal not moral standing. civil unions and other avenues are open to gays as well as men and women who wish to form non-standard families. it is just that the state does not recognize them as being the same as a LEGAL marriage.

                    Dragoon
                    Yes..,You have the right To Speak, however I have the right not to listen

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      moral standing
                      In this situation, that moral standing is purely religious and so the state is unjustified in taking the side of religion, which gay marriage would not effect, as a church can refuse to perform the marriage. Why shouldn't gay couples have the rights of

                      "1. The ability to file joint tax returns
                      2. Social security benifits
                      3. insurance benifits
                      4. inheritance rights when one partner dies" ?

                      Trying to change the nature of the debate by saying that these are not rights is not reallly fair. You can argue whether straight people should have those privlidges, yes, but if it is granted for some and not others, that is unjust. If not "rights" then these privellidges should be for all or none.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Trooth
                        Your comments above implied you supported this oppression. Was i misreading? And its an interesting choice of words to use the phrase "sexual views". Was it intentional?
                        I ment sexual views as in the fact that they go for the same sex.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ChrisF202
                          I ment sexual views as in the fact that they go for the same sex.
                          Ah, my mistake, i thought you were implying it was a choice thing.
                          at

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            oppression my arse.

                            Homosexuality is a sin, and I would hope that the majority of america still thinks so.

                            It's about time the decent people of america realised that their constitution is allowing all manner of perversion to go unchecked under the guise od 'religious freedom'.
                            SWANSEA 'TILL I DIE! - CARN THE CROWS!

                            Rule Britannia, No Surrender

                            Staff Cadet in the Australian Army Reserve.

                            Soli Deo Gloria

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              oppression my arse.

                              Homosexuality is a sin, and I would hope that the majority of america still thinks so.

                              It's about time the decent people of america realised that their constitution is allowing all manner of perversion to go unchecked under the guise od 'religious freedom'.
                              From the persective of a non-Christian (or non-Jew or non-Muslim, but this is about a predominantly Christian country) homosexuality is not a sin. The US is not a theocracy. It does not exist to fulfil any religious goal. The constitution was designed so that there would be minimal interference from the government in the lives of the people, and that includes staying out of their bedrooms. And being a sin does not mean something should be illegal (when it does not conflict with the rights of another person). If you believe its satanic or w/e, then let God or Satan punish them. Its not the place of the government to force them to stop. You put religious freedom in quotation marks i notice. So you don't think the government prohibiting certain behaviour on the grounds that its a religion based sin is a violatin of freedom of religion?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X