A Stitch in Haste

Louisiana Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

"[M]arriage shall consist of the union of one man and one woman, that legal incidents of marriage shall not be conferred on a member of any union other than such union, and that the State shall not validate or recognize a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals or any marriage contracted in any other jurisdiction.

Some hasty stitches:

"Louisiana voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment Saturday banning same-sex marriages and civil unions."

The key word there is "voters," because, we read later: "Turnout statewide appeared to be about 27 percent of Louisiana's 2.8 million voters." So we have a fraction of a puny fraction of people voting for a measure being described as "overwhleming." Hardly. And this is somehow a preferable way to govern?

"It's gratifying to see the people of Louisiana had an opportunity, as distinguished from judges, having the final say on the issue..."

It's gratifying to see that civics education is alive and well dead and buried in Louisiana. News flash, bigots: even state constitutions are subject to judicial interpretation of what the "final say" is.

[A]t least 59 precincts did not have voting machines when polls opened because officials with New Orleans' clerk of court's office failed to meet drivers who tried to deliver the machines earlier that morning. The problem was solved by midday.

Guess again. As I blogged previously, if I show up at 9AM to vote, then I'm either voting or suing. The problem was not "solved" in any intellectually honest sense of the word. Expect lawsuits.

[A] lawyer for Forum for Equality, reiterated the 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 -- a claim its supporters dispute.

Brilliant, be so consumed with your bigotry that you write a ballot initiative that screws yourselves in the process. Bloody brilliant.

Direct democracy is the opiate of the asses. The Founders knew that. We need to remember it more often.

Will update as appropriate.

UPDATE #1: Unsurprisingly, Andrew Sullivan has more, as does Steve Miller. See also Joshua Claybourn.

UPDATE #2: Unsurprisingly, the amendment is now being challenged in court:

They include the contention that the amendment was illegally adopted by the Legislature because it included more than one purpose — banning civil unions as well as "marriages" — and that it was illegally placed on the ballot for a day when there was not a statewide election already scheduled. It also mentions problems with the election in New Orleans, where voting machines were delivered late to many precincts.

The first objection (one issue per vote) is pretty standard in referendum jurisprudence and could be robust, in my opinion. The third point might be declared moot in light of the lopsided outcome. The second issue (scheduling the election) will likely turn on local law, so I can't comment on its viability.

MAJOR UPDATE: A state judge has thrown out the amendment on the first grounds (cannot ban both gay marriage and civil unions in a single ballot measure) -- just as I predicted in the paragraph above. BoiFromTroy rightly asks whether this is a fate that awaits other state referenda. Stay tuned...

(Cross-linked at Outside the Beltway.)