Top Stories of 2004: Louisiana Judge Tosses Out State Vote Protecting Marriage
by Allie Martin
December 30, 2004
(AgapePress) - An official with the American Family Association says although the Marriage Protection Amendment fell short of the required 290 votes in the U.S. House last week, the battle is still on -- for good reason. After all, when one judge can overrule 78 percent of a state's voters, it shows the need for a federal constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage.
A Louisiana judge has tossed out that state's constitutional ban on same-sex "marriage." Voters had overwhelmingly approved the amendment last month. But Judge William Morvant in Baton Rouge says the amendment was flawed because it covered not only same-sex marriage but civil unions as well. Some 78 percent of those who went to the polls on September 18 favored the ban that swept through the state legislature in the spring.
Such actions from the bench -- overturning state legislation that has been approved through the democratic process -- is exactly the reason why many groups are pushing for a federal marriage amendment. Last week's vote in the House of Representatives on the amendment was 227-186 -- a majority vote, but well short of the two-thirds vote needed to pass. With a few exceptions, it was a party-line vote. Eighty-four percent of those voting for H.J.R. 106 were Republican, while roughly the same percentage of those who voted against it were Democrats. [See complete roll call vote]
One of the major proponents of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman has been the American Family Association, a pro-family group based in Tupelo, Mississippi. Buddy Smith, AFA executive assistant, says his organization -- along with the many others that want to protect the definition of marriage from liberal federal judges -- is not ready to toss in the towel. In fact, Smith says a majority is a great place to start when it comes to building the two-thirds majority needed to send the amendment to states for ratification."The stakes are so high here, and I think the American people are finally understanding that -- that this basic building block of a healthy society is under attack," Smith says. "There are still, unfortunately, members in both the House and the Senate who seem to have bought the argument that the Defense of Marriage Act is enough for the 38 states to have in place out there to protect marriage."
Advocates like Smith obviously do not buy into that argument and point to examples in which federal judges have overruled state legislators and voters by declaring some state laws unconstitutional. The AFA spokesman says concerned Christians must continue to let their voices be heard on Capitol Hill regarding the need for a constitutional amendment.
"Those who voted in the right way [for the Marriage Protection Amendment] must have confirmation that they did the right thing, and they need to know that their constituents are standing firm with them," he says. "And those who voted the wrong way also need to hear from their constituents. And, when we contact our senators and representatives, we need to be informed."
Without an amendment, many believe the debate over same-sex "marriage" will end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Advocates of traditional marriage hope to have the definition of marriage enshrined in the U.S. Constitution -- or at least in the process of being ratified by the states -- before it gets to that point.
