Louisiana outlaws gay marriage / civil unions

[Dionysos]

http://www.leesvilledailyleader.com/...news/news3.txt

By KEVIN McGILL/Associated Press Writer

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Louisiana voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages and civil unions, but Saturday's vote was far from the last word -- a gay rights attorney promised vigorous court challenges.

With 99 percent of precincts reporting, the amendment was winning approval with 610,690 votes or 78 percent to 172,318 and support for it was evident statewide. Only in New Orleans, home to a politically strong gay community, was the race relatively close, and even there the amendment was winning passage. Turnout statewide appeared to be about 27 percent of the state's 2.8 million voters.

In Vernon Parish, the results were even more lopsided. Voters cast 92.48 percent in favor of the amendment, while 7.52 percent voted against. A total of 7,167 citizens in the parish voted. In Leesville, 89 percent voted in favor of the amendment.

''It's gratifying to see the people of Louisiana had an opportunity, as distinguished from judges, having the final say on the issue of whether traditonal marriage will continue to be the fundamental institution in our state,'' said Darrell White, a retired state judge and consultant for Louisiana Family Forum, which pushed hard for the amendment.

John Rawls, attorney for the gay rights group Forum for Equality, reiterated that group's contention that the amendment does far more than stop gay marriage and that it could affect many private contracts between unmarried couples, gay or straight.

''I am disappointed that so many Louisianians either did not read the amendent or are so afraid of gays that they voted for this amendment anyway,'' Rawls said.

Rawls said there were many possible grounds for challenging the results in state and federal court. They included the late delivery of voting machines to some New Orleans precincts Saturday, which kept some from casting ballots for hours.

The overwhelming approval followed an intense grass roots lobbying campaign by Christian conservatives. Gene Mills, of the Louisiana Family Forum outlined a statewide effort relying on word of mouth, meetings with pastors from different regions and some paid media.

Gay rights advocates had targeted civic and opinion leaders around the state with mailings of a brochure outlining their objections. They pointed out that while the amendment simply defines marriage in Louisiana as being between one man and one woman, it also contains a full paragraph of legal jargon involving the ''legal incidents of marriage'' and unions ''identical or similar to'' conventional marriage.

While there was general agreement that the amendment banned civil unions as well as gay marriages (which are already illegal in the state), supporters and opponents of the amendment disagreed over whether it also could be used to ban agreements between gay partners involving hospital visitation rights, retirement benefits, disability protection, medical benefits and inheritance.

Private companies' decisions to extend benefits to the unmarried domestic partners -- gay or straight -- of their employees could be endangered, they said.

Backers of the amendment, including LSU law school professor Katherine Spaht, who helped write it, characterized such fears as overblown.

''It doesn't touch private contracts,'' she said.

But advocates on both sides agreed it will be up to the courts to decide exactly what the amendment does and does not do.

First, however, courts may have to step in and decide if the amendment was legally adopted.

In challenges that went all the way to the state Supreme Court, Forum for Equality said the Legislature made several mistakes in putting the measure together, chief among them the placing a ban on civil unions in the amendment along with a ban on gay marriage. Amendments are supposed to have a single purpose, opponents of the measure said.

That challenge was turned away when the courts ruled that it was premature and can only be taken up after the vote was taken. However, Chief Justice Pascal Calogero wrote that the court would possibly have to address a post-election challenge on the multiple purpose issue.

[Ryan]

*shoots proverbial gun in the air*