Louisiana voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment this month that forbid same-sex marriage. There was already a Lousiana law forbidding state recognition of such pairings, but the constitutional amendment removes Lousiana from the possibility of a Massachusetts-type court-ordered recognition.
The measure passed by 78 percent statewide. It even passed in New Orleans, which has a relatively strong and politically aware gay community, according to news reports.
I have long been a defender of the concept that marriage was an issue for the states to decide, and, in accord with our most cherished principle, that of self-governance, I have been a supporter of the concept that the legislature, or the voters themselves, not the courts, decide the issue at the state level.
There are ten more such measures on ballots around the country this year: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah.
After the Massachusetts ruling, many people on these boards opined that this was the beginning of a great wave of same-sex marriage acceptance. I would argue, especially now, that to the extent any great wave exists, it’s a wave of backlash against both the concept of same-sex marriage and the process by which the Commonwealth of Massachusetts arrived at legal same-sex marriages.
Why would the two “waves” be mutually exclusive? Seems to me that more acceptance provokes more resistance—as you said, backlash.
I don’t dispute that the majority of LA’ns are probably indeed opposed to same-sex marriage, but I’m not sure how well public opinion is represented by the 78% margin of victory. What was the actual statewide voter turnout like? I saw that last week it was predicted that
If that’s the way it worked out, and figures from other districts are similar, then that means that about three-quarters of about one-third of Louisianans eligible to vote are sufficiently anti-gay-marriage to go vote for a constitutional amendment banning it. That’s only about one-fourth of them—not such a “great wave” as all that.
Why’s this in the Pit? Certainly many people will want to pit this particular event one way or the other, but what you’re talking about sounds like a perfectly reasonable GD OP.
I agree. Legislating from the bench should not occur. I like the idea of the ‘people’ deciding what to do in their own states. Referendums are a good thing.
Good for Louisiana for standing up for public decency.When even New Orleans decides against ‘gay marriage’ then it says something about it.Now we just have to pray the rest of the US will be led down the moral path
I think you’re probably right about the backlash against the way the law was “enacted” in Massachusetts, although in the long term this is an exercise in futility. Same-sex marriages (or civil unions, as it were) are pretty much inevitable at this point. The only question in my mind is how much pain it’s going to cause throughout the country until we get to that point.
From the results in Louisiana, I can see it’s going to be a lot. Too bad.
So even if the majority of people don’t want it,you’re going to shove it through and say ‘This will offend you,bad luck,I couldn’t care less’ :mad: :rolleyes:
Oh, yeah. One other thing: I absolutely loathe judicial activism. I hate it, hate it, hate it. And the :rolleyes: you gave me? You can’t even fathom how far off base you really are if you’re giving me the rolleyes.
So, we should have put the civil rights movement to in the south to a referendum to see if blacks should have equal access, etc.? I mean, we can’t be offending the ignorant, backwards, bigots of the south now, can we?
Sorry, yes. We should shove it through and tell every single one of those stupid rednecks down there that if they don’t like it, too damn bad. Move to China.
By “shoving through” you mean someone is going to force you into a homosexual marriage? You don’t say?
If our Constitution and it’s claims of Liberty mean anything, then it means that, yes, sometimes the majority doesn’t get to trample on the rights of the minority, no matter how much it really, really wants to.
Which, of course, can be flipped easily and addressed to gay-marriage advocates.
I think this encapsulates what a lot of people don’t like about judicial activism - it is often linked to an attitude that “disagreeing with a position means you are stupid and evil, and can safely be both insulted and disregarded”.
If you really mean this stuff about democracy and letting people vote, then you have to make your case. Simply asserting that it is self-evident, and saying (in essence) “do what I tell you or I will force it down your throat anyway” is not very persuasive.
Shodan: *f you really mean this stuff about democracy and letting people vote, then you have to make your case. *
True. But if you really mean this stuff about inalienable individual rights, then you have to acknowledge that sometimes the individual right trumps the popular will. (I agree that there are better ways to express that concept than saying “we’ll shove it down their throats and tell them to leave if they don’t like it”.)
And that just brings us back to the question of whether marrying the consenting adult of one’s choice is a protected individual right. The courts have now decided that it is, at least as far as race is concerned, but does that rationale also apply to gender? I think it does, but there are obviously some people in Louisiana who disagree with me.
Here’s a question: Do the federal courts have any authority over state constitutions? I mean, if the USSC were at some point to rule that same-sex marriage is protected by the US Constitution, what effect would that have on the status of Louisiana’s constitutional amendment banning it? Would the Louisiana Constitution then be unconstitutional? Or what?
Of course what you say is true… in the areas in which the federal or state constitutions legislate.
I contend that race and the prevention of government-sanctioned racial discrimination is an area in which the federal constitution is not silent: the whole reason for the 14th Amendment was to end the practice of government-sponsored racial discrimination. The 14th Amendment was not intended to end gender discrimination, even though a literal reading of its text might suggest otherwise… this is why the 19th Amendment was necessary to ensure that women could vote. The 14th Amendment was not intended to ensure that age discrimination ended, even though a literal reading of its text might suggest otherwise… this is why we to this day discriminate against those younger than 18 by denying them the vote, and this is why the 26th Amendment was necessary to lower the voting age to 18 across the country.
And of course the 14th Amendment was also not intended to end the practice of requiring that state-sanctioned marriage be between persons of the opposite sex.
So yes, I agree that sometimes, the majority does not get to trample the minority, because the minority is protected by the constitution. This is not one of those times. Except in Massachusetts.
The federal constitution is the supreme law of the land. If it is interpreted to require that the government recognize same-sex marriage, any state constitution to the contrary is void.
It could be, except one position is about allowing equal status to a segment of the population, and the other is about discriminating against a certain segment of the population based on sexual orientation.
One is enlightened and one is stupid bigotry.
Actually, yes. That about sums it up for people who are afraid of gay marriage. Except, I’ll change it to stupid and/or evil.
So we should have waited for a majority in the south to agree that civil rights were a good thing, before forcing integration on them?
No, fuckoff pinhead. Things like this take time for the populace to adjust to, right or wrong, constitutional or un. Give the States a few years to come around and as the pro-gay marriage States start to trickle in then the rest will follow. And if YOU don’t like the way a particular State votes regarding gay marriage then YOU can move to China (or a different State). You’re not going to Ram anything through when the majority isn’t ready for it. Take your time, make your case, gain support, momentum, approval, sympathy, etc, and then go forward with your best fight.
And who decides what is “an inalienable individual right”? Is it the people, via direct referendum, the legislators elected by the people, or the courts? These kind of questions, where everything someone wants is expressed as a “right”, tend to operate at the margins.
But it also brings up another thing that also bothers people. The rationale for the courts to overrule the will of the people is sometimes so strained, or outright bizarre. The Constitution (for example) says nothing whatever about abortion. But some old fart in a black robe found it there nonetheless, and therefore simply overrode whatever the people wanted. And there is essentially no recourse - the same Court that imposed the ban on state regulation of abortion rules on all appeals or attempts to alter the ban.
And therefore the Constitution can be made to say almost literally anything. And in that case, the Constitution means essentially nothing. The plain sense of the text doesn’t matter - it can be interpreted to allow or outlaw pretty much anything. And the “dumb rednecks” who don’t like it can be disregarded.
As we see in this thread. The notion that same-sex marriage is obviously a fundamental right is simply asserted. And if any disssent from the notion is encountered, simply assert it louder. And call your opponent names.
It just isn’t (in my view) a good way to get what you want from the general populace. Which is, no doubt, why proponents of same-sex marriage (or abortion, or gun control, etc.) don’t like referenda on their issues. Much easier to persuade a judge or five, and then ram it thru by force.
Regards,
Shodan
