September 19, 2004

FIGHTING AN AMENDMENT IN COURT? (via Frederik Jacobsen):

Louisiana Approves Ban on Gay Marriage (Reuters, 9/19/04)

Louisiana voters on Saturday overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriages and civil unions.

With most of the state's 4,124 voting precincts reporting, the amendment was passing by a margin of 80 percent to 20 percent.

Supporters hailed the vote as a victory for traditional marriage.

``This was an incredible mandate,'' Republican state Rep. Steve Scalise, co-author of the amendment, told Reuters. ``It shows that the people of Louisiana feel very passionately that marriage should be between a man and a woman.''

Amendment opponents vowed to fight the legislation in court.


As Mr. Jacobsen says: "The Left is right; Bush is a moron. What politician is his right mind would want to get on the 80 side of an 80-20 issue?"

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 19, 2004 3:31 PM
Comments

So, is the Supreme Court going to overturn all these State Amendments, like they did Colorado's 10 years ago? Because, clearly, the 80% on the one side of the issue are merely animated by hate.

Posted by: ray at September 19, 2004 5:49 PM

If that happens, then I would love to see Bob Barr explain how we don't need a Marriage Amendment. Personally, I favor the Institution of Marriage Amendment, which would also ban civil unions and domestic partnerships. Actually, I would go further and propose an amendment making it clear that we live in a Judeo-Christian society. The amendment would be modeled after the Second Amendment and state:

A Judeo-Christian culture being neccessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of society to defend morality and promote virtue shall not be infringed.

An amendment like that would finally put to rest the lie that we can not legislate morality, and it would essentially put the ACLU and the Libertarian Party out of business.

Posted by: Vince at September 19, 2004 9:03 PM

If the GOP senate candidate (Vitter) is on the 80 side and the Dem candidate is on the 20 side it bodes well for the GOP in LA.

Posted by: AWW at September 19, 2004 9:20 PM

We eagerly await Andrew Sullivan's comment on this outpouring of democracy.

Just like we are awaiting his comment on the same outpouring of democracy in Missouri at the end of July.

Posted by: jim hamlen at September 19, 2004 9:32 PM

Americans live in a Judeo-Christian society, not a Judeo-Christian nation.
Therefore, such an amendment would be inappropriate, even if there were a prayer of it being passed.

Further, it would merely cause a struggle over whose morality to defend, and which virtues to promote, as well as over what the definitions of "morality" and "virtue" are.

However, if you'd like America to be lead by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' First Presidency, I have no objection.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 20, 2004 3:41 AM

Michael:

The entire basis of the state here is Judeo-Christian.

Posted by: oj at September 20, 2004 7:17 AM

That our country exists at all, never mind the plethora of religions within it, can be laid at the door of secularism.

Torquemada would have loved Vince's idea.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at September 20, 2004 8:15 AM

We aren't secular.

Posted by: oj at September 20, 2004 8:20 AM

OJ:

Precisely--thanks for proving my point.

Having a secular government provides the space for people to enjoy the fruits of liberty, one of which being deciding upon a sect.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at September 20, 2004 12:34 PM

Our government isn't secular, just ecumenical.

Posted by: oj at September 20, 2004 1:14 PM
« JUST DESSERTS: | Main | VISIONS OF 240: »