Judge tosses Constitutional amendment

[Avatar4321]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041005/ap_on_re_us/louisiana_gay_marriage

This judge has to be the dumbest person alive. Its a fricking Constitutional amendment. It could be incredibly stupid and say anyone who walks backwards on wednesday faces the death penalty, and the courts would have no choice but to apply the law. You cant throw out the constitution. It just doesnt work.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

It appears it was thrown out on a technicality.

The LA Constitution probably says that only single issue amendments are constitutional and this amendment had two issues.

It wouldn't be unconstitutional therefore for the judge to throw it out.

The supporters of this amendment apparently didn't do their homework.

 

[dmp]

His ruling states the way the amendment was written violated law - one amendment can only serve one purpose...time to re-author and re-submit.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Yea that's what it was:

Article XIII, Sec. 1 (B):

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.

 

[Merlin1047]

Yea that's what it was:

Article XIII, Sec. 1 (B):

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.

An exercise in semantics. Applying shyster logic to his ruling, this judge demonstrates how ridiculous our legal system has become.

On appeal, it should be argued that the judge took too narrow a view of the provision of the state constitution limiting changes to one object. The fact is that for purposes of the state, civil unions and marriages are one and the same.

If this ruling is allowed to stand, the state will be reduced to defining terms so narrowly that a constitution will eventually contain thousands of amendments because dozens of amendments will be required in place of one.

Assume that the LA legislature passes an amendment banning gay "marriage" and another banning gay "civil unions". What is to stop the homosexual lobby from inventing ever increasing forms of unions such as "pair bonding" or "legal cohabitation" or "social partnership" and so on ad nauseum. Will a separate amendment be required to ban each one? Or is that the purpose of this challenge, to create such chaos that the legislature eventually tires of chasing every new term with yet another amendment? Will homosexuals in Louisiana eventually be allowed to enter into "cooperative domesticity" because the legislature and the voters have passed dozens of amendments and are simply disgusted at the prospect of having to pass another in a never-ending spiral?

A reasonable person would hold that, for legal purposes, "marriage" and "civil union" are the same thing. Unfortunately, finding reasonable people in the legal profession is becoming a thing of great difficulty.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Hey I'll but it this way. The law is nothing but semantics. The only way to know what the legislature meant is by what they wrote. It is very easy to change a law and correct the wording. It happens all the time. But we must be careful not to let judges have too much leeway.

The law is language and that language must be precise, clear and unequivocal or else the door opens for abuse.

And no, marriage and civil unions are not the same thing. A reasonable person would admit that. One involves religion and the other doesn't.

And splicing of words is thankfully where the judgment of judges enters the picture. No judge would say that a television and a picture box are two different things.

 

[Merlin1047]

And no, marriage and civil unions are not the same thing. A reasonable person would admit that. One involves religion and the other doesn't.

No. If "marriage" as discussed in this amendment were a religous concept then the legislature would have no power to restrict it because doing so would violate the separation of church and state.

And you ignored the bulk of my argument:

Assume that the LA legislature passes an amendment banning gay "marriage" and another banning gay "civil unions". What is to stop the homosexual lobby from inventing ever increasing forms of unions such as "pair bonding" or "legal cohabitation" or "social partnership" and so on ad nauseum. Will a separate amendment be required to ban each one? Or is that the purpose of this challenge, to create such chaos that the legislature eventually tires of chasing every new term with yet another amendment? Will homosexuals in Louisiana eventually be allowed to enter into "cooperative domesticity" because the legislature and the voters have passed dozens of amendments and are simply disgusted at the prospect of having to pass another in a never-ending spiral?

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I didn't ignore your argument. I pointed out that a judge uses his power to call the bullshit. No judge will honestly let such an obvious attempt to get around the system stand.

Calling a human and a homo sapien two separate things would never work.

And I don't see how you say marriage and civil unions are the same thing. One is sanctioned by the church and state, the only by the state.

And as is pointed out often on this Message Board, separation of church and state is not anywhere in the Constitution. I believe in however.

But look at the enormous mistake the lawyers made here. What makes you believe they wouldn't make the mistake of trying to pass an amendment that would be struck down by the Supreme Court because of religion?

 

[Merlin1047]

I didn't ignore your argument. I pointed out that a judge uses his power to call the bullshit. No judge will honestly let such an obvious attempt to get around the system stand.

Calling a human and a homo sapien two separate things would never work.

And I don't see how you say marriage and civil unions are the same thing. One is sanctioned by the church and state, the only by the state.

And as is pointed out often on this Message Board, separation of church and state is not anywhere in the Constitution. I believe in however.

But look at the enormous mistake the lawyers made here. What makes you believe they wouldn't make the mistake of trying to pass an amendment that would be struck down by the Supreme Court because of religion?

Granted that "separation" is not specifically spelled out, but it does say "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" in regard to religion. So if the "marriage" under discussion were in any way religous, then the LA legislature would have violated the constitution by restricting it.

You have not made your case that "marriage" and "civil union" as referred to in this amendment differ in any appreciable form. That is like saying that a Mercury is a car, but a Ford is an automobile and claiming that speed limits only apply to cars. Therein lies the crux of the argument. I maintain that there is no way to distinguish a "marriage" as defined by the state from a "civil union". Since the two are indistinguishable, then the argument that the amendment applies to more than one object, is invalid.

I cannot share your assessment that "No judge will honestly let such an obvious attempt to get around the system stand.". One simply has to look at the carping, sniveling and equivocating that goes on in the legal system today to see how words are being dissected - remember Slick Willie's immortal bout with the word "is"?

Our courts used to be called a justice system. Today they are largely referred to as a legal system. There is a reason for that - and the difference between one and the other is huge.