NationStates Jolt Archive

Imagine that. Looks like at least *someone* actually reads the rules on amending Constitutions.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/05/gay.marriage.ap/index.html

BATON ROUGE, Louisiana (AP) -- A state judge Tuesday threw out a Louisiana constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, less than three weeks after it was overwhelmingly approved by the voters.

District Judge William Morvant said the amendment was flawed as drawn up by the Legislature because it had more than one purpose: banning not only gay marriage but also civil unions.

The good news is, it provides precedent for the challenge to the GA proposed amendment, which is being carried out in an equally unconstitutional manner. Not to mention that the wording on the ballot is completely misleading.

Let's not get into the "are gay marriages moral" debate here. The issue on the table is legislators who think they are above the rules because they want to trick voters into putting their plans in action, plain and simple.

Imagine that. Looks like at least *someone* actually reads the rules on amending Constitutions.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/05/gay.marriage.ap/index.html



The good news is, it provides precedent for the challenge to the GA proposed amendment, which is being carried out in an equally unconstitutional manner. Not to mention that the wording on the ballot is completely misleading.

Let's not get into the "are gay marriages moral" debate here. The issue on the table is legislators who think they are above the rules because they want to trick voters into putting their plans in action, plain and simple.

From the Louisiana State Constitution of 1974 (http://senate.legis.state.la.us/Documents/Constitution/Article13.htm#%A71.%20Amendments):
(B) Form of Proposal. A proposed amendment shall have a title containing a brief summary of the changes proposed; shall be confined to one object; and shall set forth the entire article, or the sections or other subdivisions thereof, as proposed to be revised or only the article, sections, or other subdivisions proposed to be added. However, the legislature may propose, as one amendment, a revision of an entire article of this constitution which may contain multiple objects or changes. A section or other subdivision may be repealed by reference. When more than one amendment is submitted at the same election, each shall be submitted so as to enable the electors to vote on them separately.

So it only sets precedent if the Georgia constitution has a similar provision. It doesn't appear to have one. (http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/conart10.htm)

BATON ROUGE, Louisiana (AP) -- A state judge Tuesday threw out a Louisiana constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, less than three weeks after it was overwhelmingly approved by the voters.

District Judge William Morvant said the amendment was flawed as drawn up by the Legislature because it had more than one purpose: banning not only gay marriage but also civil unions.

Argh! Just the kind of thing that makes my head spin.
An appointed government official overturns the overwhelming voice of the local voters. Essentially saying "You're not allowed to believe that!" :headbang:

From the Louisiana State Constitution of 1974 (http://senate.legis.state.la.us/Documents/Constitution/Article13.htm#%A71.%20Amendments):


So it only sets precedent if the Georgia constitution has a similar provision. It doesn't appear to have one. (http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/conart10.htm)

^^^^ Agreed. Sneaky move by the Louisianan legislature, but it's not precedent setting since it deals with a Louisiana-only rule (i.e., the rule where an amendment can only have one change).

BATON ROUGE, Louisiana (AP) -- A state judge Tuesday threw out a Louisiana constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, less than three weeks after it was overwhelmingly approved by the voters.

District Judge William Morvant said the amendment was flawed as drawn up by the Legislature because it had more than one purpose: banning not only gay marriage but also civil unions.

Argh! Just the kind of thing that makes my head spin.
An appointed government official overturns the overwhelming voice of the local voters. Essentially saying "You're not allowed to believe that!" :headbang:

It would be more accurate to say "An appointed government official overturns the illegal use of the state constitutional amendment process. Essentially saying 'You have to play by the rules, gentlemen.'"

I hate to get off topic, but I can't help but wonder: does anybody know where the government gets the power to recognize marriage?

Texas:

Interesting question. I'm sure we'll know soon enough.

Then again, I'm sure Young's followers in Utah already tried many of these arguments. As a quick history lesson, part of the condition to Utah joining the Union was that the Mormon Church denounce polygamy.

So much for the equal rights of polygamists, eh?

I hate to get off topic, but I can't help but wonder: does anybody know where the government gets the power to recognize marriage?

My understanding is that American governments began licensing marriage to prevent inter-racial marriages.

The issue on the table is legislators who think they are above the rules because they want to trick voters into putting their plans in action, plain and simple.
..or actually ignorant of the rules.

I hate to get off topic, but I can't help but wonder: does anybody know where the government gets the power to recognize marriage?
I don't know how it is in the United States, but in Canada it is written into our Constitution that the federal government has powers over things of national interest that do not exclusively fall under the jurisdiction of the provincial legislations, things like heated legal issues that affect how people (claim they will) live their lives.

So it only sets precedent if the Georgia constitution has a similar provision. It doesn't appear to have one. (http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/conart10.htm)

Which Georgia does, or it wouldn't be an issue, now would it? In Georgia, the issue refers to *any* bill, not just amendments.

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/conart3.htm

Meanwhile, in addition to this problem, the Georgia ballot is not giving the voters the chance to vote on all issues within the proposed amendment separately, as covered in the link you provided and the regulation of any initiative put on the ballot.

Argh! Just the kind of thing that makes my head spin.
An appointed government official overturns the overwhelming voice of the local voters. Essentially saying "You're not allowed to believe that!" :headbang:

Learn how to read sweetie, the court said that the amendment itself was improper, not that the opinions expressed by it were.

..or actually ignorant of the rules.

Which would be even more scary.

Although, I was speaking more of the GA Amendment, which addressed three different issues, but only one of those issues is expressed on the ballot. Thus, they are intentionally misleading the many voters that oppose gay marriage but support civil unions.

I hate to get off topic, but I can't help but wonder: does anybody know where the government gets the power to recognize marriage?
Well, the government gets the power to do whatever it damn well pleases, really. But it's each state's Board of Health that determines who gets a license and who don't. I know that some states still have blood tests for STDs that you have to pass before being issued a license...

Argh! Just the kind of thing that makes my head spin.
An appointed government official overturns the overwhelming voice of the local voters. Essentially saying "You're not allowed to believe that!" :headbang:

1.) I've heard enough of this complaint. Stop whining. Judges are appointed to interpret the law for it's consistency and constitutionality. That's their job. Let them do it. What you're doing is like complaining that an architect is designing a house.

If you disagree with the judge's decision, that's fine, just try to argue your case.

2.) Laws cannot restrict beliefs, they can only restrict behaviors.

Which Georgia does, or it wouldn't be an issue, now would it? In Georgia, the issue refers to *any* bill, not just amendments.

That would apply if we were talking about a bill. But we aren't. Amendments are covered in a separate section and the rules are different.

ARTICLE X.

AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

SECTION I.

CONSTITUTION, HOW AMENDED

Paragraph I. Proposals to amend the Constitution; new Constitution. Amendments to this Constitution or a new Constitution may be proposed by the General Assembly or by a constitutional convention, as provided in this article. Only amendments which are of general and uniform applicability throughout the state shall be proposed, passed, or submitted to the people.

Meanwhile, in addition to this problem, the Georgia ballot is not giving the voters the chance to vote on all issues within the proposed amendment, as covered in the link you provided.

Which would be a different issue.

That would apply if we were talking about a bill. But we aren't. Amendments are covered in a separate section and the rules are different.

There was a bill to orginally get the amendment on the ballot, but your point is taken. I was misinformed on the content of the GA constitution.

Which would be a different issue.

Yes, but there is still precedent there, it is simply not as specific. Basically, there is precedent for holding a legislature very strictly to the rules on proposed amendments and for striking illegally proposed amendments down even if they have been voted on recently.

On an interesting side note, there is yet another part in your post that undoubtedly makes this amendment improperly proposed:

Only amendments which are of general and uniform applicability throughout the state shall be proposed, passed, or submitted to the people.

While one could argue that defining marriage as between a man and a woman would be applicable in a general and uniform matter, the clause on refusing to recognize marriages from other states is only general and uniform if *all* marriages from that state are not recognized.