posted on January 19, 2005 06:31:52 PM new
Jan 19, 4:35 PM (ET)
By ALAN SAYRE
NEW ORLEANS (AP) - The Louisiana Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously reinstated an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution that was overwhelmingly approved by the voters in September.
The high court reversed a ruling by a state district judge, who struck down the "defense of marriage" amendment in October on the grounds that the measure dealt with more than one subject, in violation of the Louisiana Constitution.
But the Supreme Court said: "Each provision of the amendment is germane to the single object of defense of marriage."
The amendment was put on the ballot by the Legislature and approved by 78 percent of the voters. Eleven other states adopted similar amendments in the fall elections.
"We're obviously delighted," said Michael Johnson, an attorney for Alliance Defense Fund, which argued for the amendment's legality.
Gay rights activist and state legislative candidate Chris Daigle called the ruling an outrage, saying it does nothing to defend marriage.
"High divorce rates, high adultery rates, poverty, lack of education, parents having to hold more than one job, those are the real threats to marriage," he said.
But other opponents of the amendment said they were pleased that the court noted that it would not affect the rights of unmarried couples, gay or heterosexual.
In striking down the amendment, Judge William Morvant of Baton Rouge had ruled that it would also prevent the state from recognizing common-law relationships, domestic partnerships and civil unions between both gay and heterosexual couples.
At issue was a provision that stated: "A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be recognized."
But the high court said the amendment would not stop unmarried couples from buying property together, making medical decisions for each other, or leaving their estates to one another.
Randy Evans, an attorney for the gay rights group Forum for Equality, called the high court's ruling "a decision worthy of Solomon."
Legislative backers of the amendment said that although gay marriages were already banned by state law, the amendment was needed to ensure that courts would not authorize such marriages, as happened in Massachusetts.
"This makes it clear that marriage will remain a sacred union between a man and a woman, and removes the ability of activist judges from changing that definition," Republican state Rep. Steve Scalise said.
posted on January 19, 2005 06:50:47 PM newand removes the ability of activist judges from changing that definition," Republican state Rep. Steve Scalise said.
When will people learn that judges do not make laws. They make a decision about laws that are already on the books.
So where is all this doom and gloom that was supposed to occur once gay marriages were made legal in Mass. It has been 8 months now and the world has not come to an end.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on January 19, 2005 07:08:42 PM new
Twinkletoes you better speak up. I can't hear you:
You are currently ignoring posts from Twelvepole. Click here to view them.
AIN'T SILENCE GRAND.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on January 20, 2005 01:46:29 PM new
And more good news on the same line.
The WashingtonTimes.com reports today that a U.S. judge has also ruled in favor of DOMA.
TAMPA, Fla. (AP) ? A federal judge yesterday upheld the federal law protecting states from having to recognize another state's homosexual "marriages," dismissing a lawsuit by two women seeking to have their Massachusetts union recognized by Florida.
In a separate ruling yesterday, pro-family forces scored a victory in Louisiana, where the state Supreme Court unanimously reinstated the marriage amendment to the state constitution that voters overwhelmingly approved in September.
posted on January 20, 2005 01:56:50 PM new"A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be recognized."
The government can rule all it wants but gays are never going to back down from wanting equal rights. You all act like if the "people" speak, the issues will somehow go away.
posted on January 20, 2005 03:29:45 PM new
KD - This judge made his ruling according to Federal law....the DOMA.
I know that the support the activist judges making up law themselves don't agree. And I also agree that one day the USSC will be called upon to decide this issue. But they may not....they may decide to leave it to each individual state to vote on themselves....as we have seen them do recently...with MA being the ONLY one who, for the time being, allows gays to marry. And that could change next year.
So it's not only how the voters want things...it's the Federal law at the time being. This judge was obviously willing to abide by the law.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 20, 2005 06:50:12 PM newwith MA being the ONLY one who, for the time being, allows gays to marry. And that could change next year.
The last I read on the Mass. situation is that they need another vote in favor of putting this on the 2006 ballot. As it stands now, they may no longer have the support to put this on the ballot. Right now it is a toss up.
The good people of Mass. will not fall for the conservative attacks that same sex marriages will lead to the downfall of society. They have been saying that for the past 30 years. It is time they come up with a new excuse.
Kraft, here is a ruling from an Indiana appeals court for their reason for upholding the ban on same sex marriages:
The court ruled that the ban did not violate the constitution because ``opposite-sex marriage furthers the legitimate state interest in encouraging opposite-sex couples to procreate responsibly and have and raise children within a stable environment.''
Basiclly what they are saying is that the reason for marriage is to procreate. Yes, that is one reason but not the only reason. If that is what they are basing their decision on, then what about those straight couples that get married and don't want kids or those couples that can not have kids. Based on the Indiana decision those straight couples should not be allowed to get married because they would not be having children. The decision also is saying that straight couples are better at raising children than same sex couples.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on January 20, 2005 07:02:25 PM new
Logan, I'd say it's archiac at best, but since Canada allowed gays to marry, everyone here has turned gay. The same thing will happen in the U.S. if it isn't stopped in time, which is what the gay "agenda" is all about, right?
posted on January 20, 2005 07:05:31 PM new
Florida says it's ok for gays to be a foster parent, but not a parent... now that is stupid... one or the other... not both...
I do like the fact the USSC turned the case back to the state though... seems they are going to let each state decide.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
[ edited by Twelvepole on Jan 20, 2005 07:06 PM ]
posted on January 20, 2005 07:34:29 PM new
" Logan, I'd say it's archiac at best, but since Canada allowed gays to marry, everyone here has turned gay"
posted on January 20, 2005 08:27:12 PM new
Kraft-It is different in the US. In Canada everyone has health care, I assume. In the US they don't. They want the same benefits as Married Couples and one of the reasons is so that the one that is uninsured can get on the policy of the one that is insured. Now that probably isn't such a big deal but it is to a corporation which is trying to keep health benefits low....
The other reasons I don't know. Maybe someone who does will say why it is important to marry....
posted on January 21, 2005 05:20:00 AM new
Actually classic only mr.kraft turned gay... reason she is so frustrated... that and I won't come to canada and see her...
posted on January 21, 2005 06:36:22 AM new
Libra: They want the same benefits as Married Couples and one of the reasons is so that the one that is uninsured can get on the policy of the one that is insured. Now that probably isn't such a big deal but it is to a corporation which is trying to keep health benefits low....
Libra, that is partially true. How many straight people get married just for the health benefits especially from the older generation. Back in the 60's how many mothers stayed home and took care of the kids while the husband worked. If the wife was not married she would not have had health benefits back then.
The second part of this deals with the other benefits that go along with being "married". Libra were you ever denied visitation rights to see your spouse in the hospital because you were not "a family member". Gay couples that have lived together for 10, 20, 30 years have been denied visitation rights because they were not immediate family. There have been cases where a lesbian couple is giving birth to a child. The woman who was not pregant was unable to be in the delivery woman while her partner gave birth because she was not "family". Would this happen to a straight couple?
There is more to this than just getting health benefits. It is all the other things that straight people take for granted when they get that little piece of paper called a marriage license.
Libra, let me ask you this. What proof did your husband need to provide his employer for you to get on his health insurance? (if you husband is on your health insurance then what proof did you need to provide to your employer to show you were both married)?
Second what did you need to provide to the Church or state when you applied for a marriage application?
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on January 21, 2005 07:00:48 AM new
" Actually classic only mr.kraft turned gay... reason she is so frustrated... that and I won't come to canada and see her..."
posted on January 21, 2005 10:35:03 AM new
Yep....three states in two days decide for traditional marriage. LA, FL and now IN.
No wonder logansdad is in such a pissy mood.
Marriage gets third victory in two days. Indiana Court of Appeals rebuffs attack on state Defense of Marriage Act
Thursday, January 20, 2005, 12:31 PM (MST)
ADF Media Relations
INDIANAPOLIS
"The Indiana Court of Appeals today ruled unanimously that “the Indiana Constitution does not require the governmental recognition of same-sex marriage.” The ruling is the third court victory in two days for defenders of marriage.
“Today was the third strike in a row for same-sex ‘marriage’ advocates trying to force their will upon the rest of America through the courts,” said Glen Lavy, senior vice president of the Alliance Defense Fund’s Marriage Litigation Center. “These setbacks will make it more difficult for them in future cases.”
A group of homosexual couples who were denied marriage licenses in Hendricks and Marion counties filed the suit, Ruth Morrison, et al., v. Doris Ann Sadler, et al., claiming that Indiana’s law recognizing marriage as only the union of one man and one woman violates the state constitution. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit on May 7, 2003, but the couples appealed the case. Today, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 21, 2005 10:42:26 AM newNo wonder logansdad is in such a pissy mood.
And what is your excuse for being in a "pissy mood" everyday Linda?
Linda you are late with your breaking news story. I posted that last night.
Here is part of the story you missed:
The court ruled that the ban did not violate the constitution because ``opposite-sex marriage furthers the legitimate state interest in encouraging opposite-sex couples to procreate responsibly and have and raise children within a stable environment.''
Basiclly what they are saying is that the reason for marriage is to procreate. Yes, that is one reason but not the only reason. If that is what they are basing their decision on, then what about those straight couples that get married and don't want kids or those couples that can not have kids. Based on the Indiana decision those straight couples should not be allowed to get married because they would not be having children. The decision also is saying that straight couples are better at raising children than same sex couples.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
"Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
[ edited by logansdad on Jan 21, 2005 10:47 AM ]
posted on January 21, 2005 11:06:05 AM new
LOL - I understand....[notice compassionate conservative here ]
losing the election and then three strikes against gay marriage has the liberals amongst us just sooooo upset.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 21, 2005 11:09:43 AM new
Oh..Happy and compassionate again!
New batteries in place! LOL..
[ edited by maggiemuggins on Jan 21, 2005 11:10 AM ]
posted on January 21, 2005 11:14:23 AM new
classic - YES...KD is a raving beauty...as she will most likely inform you very soon. She even paints her toenails a pretty red color...just in case some of the men might have a toe or foot fettish.
I've been begging twelve for years to get up there and see kraft....I just know the two of them would hit it off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 21, 2005 11:26:56 AM new
What all this talk about batteries? Appears to me that these two liberal women here need to have a substitute for the real thing....a man. But being such macho women guess they're forced to turn to a poor substitute.
Bet you two burned your bras in the 60's. how funny
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 21, 2005 11:42:20 AM newAppears to me that these two liberal women here need to have a substitute for the real thing....a man.
So Linda when was the last time you had a man date? (not mandate, but man date)
Or are you substituting the mandate you got from Bush for the real thing???
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on January 21, 2005 11:43:45 AM new
Kiara, Linda doesn't need batteries she just needs to make sure the doll is full of hot air and doesn't have any leaks.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
