Constitutional Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage Voided by Louisiana Judge
Immediate Release. October 6, 2004 A Louisiana constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage that was overwhelmingly approved by voters on September 18, 2004, was rejected by state Judge William Morvant.
The constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and its related prohibition against state recognition of same-sex marriage and civil unions, was favored by some 78 percent of Louisiana voters. However, since it had more than one purpose banning not only same-sex marriage but also civil unions, the amendment was flawed said Judge William Morvant. Yet a similar argument prior to the vote on the amendment was rejected by state courts saying it was premature.
“Judge William Morvant is just another example of America's failed judicial system that is no longer governed by the rule of law but judicial activism. Judge Morvant is a single individual that has become a policymaker for the entire state reflecting his own ideological preference and not that of the people. The destiny of the state of Louisiana must be controlled by the people not the courts. And social engineering judges must not guide any reform of the state but the people,” said Dr. Joel P. Rutkowski, president of the American Voice Institute of Public Policy.
As judges have throughout this nation, Judge Morvant usurped a legislative act of the state legislature, that was further substantiated by a referendum vote of the people of Louisiana. Judge Morvant exercised his control over the prevailing majority which is wrong ethically, morally as well as constitutionally.
Louisiana state law establishes that marriage is between a man and a woman, the legislature passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and the people of the state overwhelming supported this legislation by a referendum vote. The government of the state of Louisiana is to function with the consent of the governed either through a legislative action or the action of an elected executive. At no time over the objection of the majority should policy be enacted by a minority group. The minority is not equivalent to the majority and should never exercise strength over the majority although the minority does have a right to attempt to persuade the majority to accept its point of view or include portions of it in decisions. With this judge's actions, this was not the case.
Joel P. Rutkowski, P.h.D.
President, The American Voice Institute Of Public Policy
to the American Voice Institute of Public Policy Home Page