# Louisiana approves ban on gay marriage by 78 percent **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 20, 2004, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120 "2004-09-20T12:22:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/101 "2004-09-22T02:46:11Z")
> [@Uncommon Sense](#): > > The percentage of indifference is directly related to the importance of the issue (relatively speaking). If most people could care less, then only those that care get to make the decisions. In reality, you wont have all the drama this topic creates and then have no one show up at the poles. If anything, that suggests an indifferent voter should be counted as a “no” vote. Since the amendment seeks to limit individual rights, and a sizable portion of the population evidently don’t care about the issue, why let those rights be abridged? Of course, consitutional amendments that seek to restrict individual freedom, be they state or federal, tend to fail anyway. A consititutional crisis might be forced if a gay couple, legally married in another state, visit Lousiana and one of them is seriously injured. The spouse, naturally, will consider himself or herself as legal next of kin and empowered to make certain decisions. A hospital administrator will either end up listening to the spouse (rendering the amendment meaningless) or bar the spouse from decision-making and hold the entire state up to ridicule. ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/102 "2004-09-22T10:44:23Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > I have believed for some time that gay marriage is a political impossibility right now. Civil unions, on the other hand, could be passed in many places, especially if the benefit is opened to any two people that want to establish a household and aren’t currently in a traditional marriage. > > By setting their sights on marriage as the goal, I think some gay activists have imperiled the progress of the civil union. The people who need benefits right now are, sadly, caught in the middle. And is that the fault of these “rabid gay activists?” I could claim that the best way to ensure civil union status for the people who really need it right now, would be for all currently-married heterosexual couples to renounce their married status and settle for a civil union. They would henceforth be required to refer to their spouses as “partner.” Society would be entitled to treat them as nothing more than a domestic partnership or a relationship of convenience. It would be acceptable for people to question the morality of their union. Their children would be bastards. Wouldn’t they be selfish and unreasonable for refusing to do that? After all, it’s for the good of the people who really need it right now. Even if it is a lie. As we’ve seen for generations, for two consenting adults in love to want to be married is a completely unreasonable, fanciful request. They might as well ask for the moon. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/103 "2004-09-22T12:41:19Z")
Come now, **SolGrundy**. Your post veers off from the road of political possibility into the realm of pure fantasy. There is no way gay marriage can be enacted nationwide right now. There is already a huge backlash against it. Every single state that puts anti-gay marriage on the ballot sees it pass by huge majorities. The Commonwealth of Virginia recently passed breathtakingly strict legislation that bans not only gay marriage, but civil unions as well. The statute could even threaten POA contracts between cohabitating gay partners. Given all this, wouldn’t pressing for civil unions instead be the politically wise course? They are seen as less threatening, especially if they are opened to other folks who need to set up a household but aren’t married. The discussion about incest makes this point clear. If an elderly brother and sister want to set up a household and share benefits, there are huge legal impediments in their way. Identical, in fact, to those faced by cohabitating gay partners. And marriage isn’t an option for reasons enumerated nicely above. Besides, who would want to marry their sibling, if they only wanted to set up a household and not screw each other? There are people who need some sort of legal remedy right now, and they are being forgotten in the shouting match between absolutists on both sides. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/104 "2004-09-22T13:47:49Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > 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”.) Especially since the assertion that anything is being shoved down anyone else’s throat is fundamentally dishonest. > [@](#): > > “You don’t like the Goths?” > “No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!” > “Persecution?” Padway raised his eyebrows. > “Religious persecution. We won’t stand for it forever.” > “But I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased.” > “That’s just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested, as if they owned the country! If that isn’t persecution, I’d like to know what is!” > – L. Sprague DeCamp (_Lest Darkness Fall_) ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/105 "2004-09-22T14:07:03Z")
So, does the government (as an extension of “the people”) have a legitimate, over-arching, public interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage? Isn’t that a sort of bright-line test that can be applied? If so, what’s the legitimate, over-arching, public interest? ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/106 "2004-09-22T14:42:07Z")
**Mr. Moto** : The one bright, shiny problem with allowing civil unions is as I already pointed out. The fundamentalists will soil themselves with fury the first time two homosexuals apply for and receive one. Doesn’t matter one bit that it might (and I think I’m being generous when I say, “might”) be used by heterosexuals. After all, as you say: > [@](#): > > Every single state that puts anti-gay marriage on the ballot sees it pass by huge majorities. Of course, just because most people vote for something doesn’t make it right in either a moral or legal sense. As to VA passing legislation that could threaten POA contracts between gay partners, does it threaten POA between anyone else? If not, we might be looking at yet another case that will make it before the Supremes. And will be shot down. A good thing for all. Waste ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/107 "2004-09-22T14:59:04Z")
Sure, possibly, **Waste**. In several years, perhaps. Keep in mind that Virginia is so conservative, laws against cohabitation are still on the books. > [@](#): > > § 18.2-345. Lewd and lascivious cohabitation. > > If any persons, not married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, or, whether married or not, be guilty of open and gross lewdness and lasciviousness, each of them shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor; and upon a repetition of the offense, and conviction thereof, each of them shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. It’s own sodomy statute stood until the Supreme Court decision. Meanwhile, there are gay folks in Virginia that are suffering through this backlash. Politics has been described as the art of the possible. I don’t believe gay marriage is possible right now. In that environment, alternatives must be sought. Perhaps down the line, gay marriage won’t seem so threatening. As of right now, it is seen as such. This must be seen as an improvement over the situation just a few short years ago, when it was seen as a ludicrous joke, or not considered at all. Perhaps in this environment, civil unions can pass, especially if they are seen by many as heading off true gay marriage. Gay marriage, however, has a much harder fight. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/108 "2004-09-22T15:22:31Z")
> [@Spectre of Pithecanthropus](#): > > I don’t care if it’s a 95% majority who don’t want it, they don’t have an absolute right to forbid it to the other 5%, unless they can demonstrate convincingly that irreparable social harm will result unless majority rule is upheld. Using such plattitudes as “moral fabric” and “following Jesus’ teachings” does not make for terribly concrete arguments in cases that are supposed to be decided by impartial courts. I don’t consider “social harm” to be a valid argument, precisely because it lends itself to such evidence-free platitudes. Point to an individual person who is harned (being unhappy about something that you can simply ignore if you don’t actively choose to make an issue of something doesn’t count\*), and we’ll talk. \*I recall an joke about somebody who complained about kids skinny-dipping in the nearby river. The police told the kids to move on. Another complaint call came in the next day. The police checked and found that the kids had obeyed their instructions to move a half-mile downstream. Puzzled, they stopped by the complainer’s house to ask why there was still a problem – surely, nobody could see anything objectionable at that range. “With my binoculars, I can.” ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/109 "2004-09-22T15:25:01Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > Gay marriage prohibition just isn’t seen the same way by most as Jim Crow Fifty years ago, Jim Crow just wasn’t seen the same way by most as “No Irish Need Apply”. ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/110 "2004-09-22T15:40:53Z")
But, **Mr. Moto** , if Virginia is as conservative as you say (I honestly don’t know, to my detriment), then there is quite simply no way in hell that civil unions have a chance of passing. Because _if_ they do, then homosexuals _will_ use them to set up housekeeping. And when that happens, the referendum making them illegal will blow by you so fast that it’ll bowl you over in it’s slipstream. Therefore, they are seen as at least as threatening as SSM, and an attempt to gain something through less than honest means. Besides, I don’t see civil unions being used widely by just folks. There are damned few instances of siblings wanting to set up housekeeping and marriage remains an option for most. And once again, just because something passes with a majority vote in no way, shape or form makes it right. Too, I’m genuinely curious as to whether or not the legislation makes POA contracts null and void only for homosexuals or for everyone. Because while cohabitation remains illegal, it happens with startling regularity. And we’ve seen what happened to those sodomy statutes that you mentioned. As to “the art of the possible” - sometimes possibilities have to be created. I think that this is one of those times. Waste ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/111 "2004-09-22T15:43:10Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > If anything, that suggests an indifferent voter should be counted as a “no” vote. [hijack] Just to keep the thicket of laws under control, I’m in favor of 1) passage of a law requiring a majority of the **total eligible voters** , not just a majority of the ones who show up (for both legislative bodies and referenda) and 2) laws expiring twenty years (give or take a factor of two) after enactment (the same law could be passed again before the old one expired if it’s still wanted) [/hijack] > [@](#): > > Of course, consitutional amendments that seek to restrict individual freedom, be they state or federal, tend to fail anyway. I’m not sure the sample size is big enough (for federal Constitutional amendments) to draw that conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/112 "2004-09-22T15:46:16Z")
> [@GLWasteful](#): > > As to VA passing legislation that could threaten POA contracts between gay partners, does it threaten POA between anyone else? I am waiting to hear of some legal weasel finding a way to use the VA statue as a way of evading some perfectly ordinary contractual obligation to someone who happens to be of the same sex (yes, it’s written that broadly). ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/113 "2004-09-22T15:52:59Z")
> [@GLWasteful](#): > > But, **Mr. Moto** , if Virginia is as conservative as you say (I honestly don’t know, to my detriment), then there is quite simply no way in hell that civil unions have a chance of passing. Because _if_ they do, then homosexuals _will_ use them to set up housekeeping. And when that happens, the referendum making them illegal will blow by you so fast that it’ll bowl you over in it’s slipstream. Therefore, they are seen as at least as threatening as SSM, and an attempt to gain something through less than honest means. Besides, I don’t see civil unions being used widely by just folks. There are damned few instances of siblings wanting to set up housekeeping and marriage remains an option for most. > > And once again, just because something passes with a majority vote in no way, shape or form makes it right. Too, I’m genuinely curious as to whether or not the legislation makes POA contracts null and void only for homosexuals or for everyone. Because while cohabitation remains illegal, it happens with startling regularity. And we’ve seen what happened to those sodomy statutes that you mentioned. > > As to “the art of the possible” - sometimes possibilities have to be created. I think that this is one of those times. > > Waste Given that marriage impacts on so many federal benefits and entitlements, what I envision is a federal civil union benefit. Various states could add benefits as they see fit. I believe most would make them equivalent with marriage, so long as only one or the other is entered into at any given time by a participant. Even if it has to be a state-by-state passage of law, civil unions have a much greater chance of going through. THe only way any state could legalize gay marriage is through judicial action. Left to normal lawmaking, it will fail everywhere. The votes in Missouri and Louisiana should prove cautionary. Likewise, Hawaii, a socially liberal state, banned gay marriage by a huge margin. I’m sorry, but this should serve to illustrate how difficult the proposition is. ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/114 "2004-09-22T16:54:22Z")
**Mr. Moto** : Except that you claim that you want a _federal_ civil union benefit. Then you go on to say: > [@](#): > > Even if it has to be a state-by-state passage of law, civil unions have a much greater chance of going through. So, which is it? Federal or state? Because if it’s federal, then states don’t _have_ to pass it. And if that’s the case, the number of fundamentalists and wignuts in my own neck of the woods are gonna come crawling out from under their rocks screeching about the evil gummint forcing them to recognize what is essentially a marriage between homosexuals. So why not just do it right, rather than dealing with it in such a half-assed fashion? Conversely, if it’s a state law, then it’s gonna run up against other states refusing to recognize it if it’s a union between homosexuals. So, would heterosexual people who have applied for and been granted a civil union in, say, Virginia have to apply for a whole new civil union if they move to South Carolina? What if the civil union offered in SC doesn’t carry the same package of benefits that the one they’ve lived under in VA? Are they just screwed? > [@](#): > > The votes in Missouri and Louisiana should prove cautionary. The votes in MO and LA prove that bigots vote. Nothing new about that. > [@](#): > > I’m sorry, but this should serve to illustrate how difficult the proposition is. Which is why it needs to go before the Supremes. Establish marriage as a right that is available to **any** one, their genders be damned. Stop dicking around with this civil union bullshit once and for all. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/115 "2004-09-22T17:02:56Z")
My preference is for a comprehensive federal benefit. In the interim, or absence of this, civil unions might need to be passed in the several states. ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/116 "2004-09-22T17:42:39Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > My preference is for a comprehensive federal benefit. In the interim, or absence of this, civil unions might need to be passed in the several states. And what happens in any of my hypotheticals? Besides, you’re wanting to create a new federal benefit which would create more than a couple of layers of bureaucracy atop those which already exist. Seems like a helluva lot of effort to go to when the answer is staring everyone right in the face. ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/117 "2004-09-22T17:47:31Z")
And I apologize, **Steve MB** , for missing your post. It appears that the latest and greatest from VA is destined to go down in flames. Deservedly so, to my way of thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/118 "2004-09-22T17:48:34Z")
But when that answer is politically impossible, sometimes you have to make do. Hell, a lot of answers are staring me in the face, If enacted, I think they’d really set this country right. I’m realistic enough to realize most of this is pure fantasy, since these solutions of mine would never pass. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/119 "2004-09-22T18:14:05Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > I am waiting to hear of some legal weasel finding a way to use the VA statue as a way of evading some perfectly ordinary contractual obligation to someone who happens to be of the same sex (yes, it’s written that broadly). It is? Huh. > [@](#): > > A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable. Va. Code § 20-45.3. Would you care to amend your analysis? - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/120 "2004-09-22T18:27:51Z")
> [@GLWasteful](#): > > And what happens in any of my hypotheticals? Besides, you’re wanting to create a new federal benefit which would create more than a couple of layers of bureaucracy atop those which already exist. Seems like a helluva lot of effort to go to when the answer is staring everyone right in the face. Good point! Hell, yes, let’s invent a “rotatory suspensional device” – it’s obvious to anyone that wheels belong on cars, not trucks! :dubious: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120.md?page=7)