BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) – Despite the overwhelming support of voters on Sept. 18, a state judge threw out Louisiana’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, saying its drafters had overreached by making it too broad.

Suggesting he wouldn’t be swayed by the substantial 78-percent “yes” vote, District Judge William Morvant said his “inescapable conclusion” was that the amendment was unconstitutional because it had more than one purpose – prohibiting not only same-sex marriage but also civil unions.

If upheld on appeal, Morvant’s ruling means lawmakers supporting the ban will have to submit a new amendment to voters. The Legislature currently is not scheduled to meet again until April.

The judge’s surprise ruling was a rare setback for boosters of same-sex marriage bans, who are otherwise enjoying success all over the country.

Attorney John Rawls, who represented the gay rights group Forum for Equality in the case, said afterwards he was “deeply gratified” by the ruling, which he called “unassailable, irrefutable, plain and clear.”

“Somebody got greedy and wanted to stick something else in. They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar,” he said of the ban’s drafters.

The Legislature spent much of its last session preoccupied by the ban, and it received overwhelming approval from the state’s lawmakers.

Morvant’s ruling was preceded by an emotional appeal from Rawls, who pleaded with the judge to uphold the rights of the “most despised minority.”

But the judge, a Republican veteran of this city’s drug court with a reputation for no-nonsense efficiency, rejected such appeals to “emotions,” saying firmly: “This is a matter of law. Emotions do not, will not, play a part in this court’s ruling.”

The judge focused on the ban’s third sentence: “A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be recognized.” Morvant said the sentence “constitutes a separate object, which requires a separate amendment.”

The judge appeared to have been influenced by the testimony of a New Orleans man, William Schultz, who told the court that voting for the ban posed a dilemma for him, because he opposed same-sex marriage on the one hand, but favored civil unions on the other.

“Mr. Schultz was clearly forced to vote against one of his strongly-held beliefs because of the wording of this amendment,” Morvant said.

A lawyer representing the legislators and conservative groups that campaigned for the amendment said he was “surprised” by the ruling, and vowed an immediate appeal, as did Attorney General Charles Foti, whose office defended the amendment for the state. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council in Washington, denounced the ruling.

“We have judges acting in arrogance to usurp the actions of the Legislature and deny the voters of Louisiana who voted overwhelmingly to support the protection of marriage,” he said.

State courts had rejected arguments similar to those made by opponents before the election, saying it was premature.

The vote was part of a national groundswell against same-sex marriage, which followed last year’s Massachusetts Supreme Court recognition of same-sex marriage.

The Louisiana Legislature pushed through the proposed ban in its session this spring; the proponents argued that unless it was put in the state constitution, a Louisiana court could, in theory, one day follow the Massachusetts example.

The legislators pushing the ban – conservative Republicans like state senator John Hainkel of New Orleans and representative Steve Scalise of Metairie – argued that state law establishing marriage as between a man and a woman wasn’t enough. Christian conservatives in the state launched a vigorous grassroots campaign to ensure passage, though it hardly seemed necessary, given the high level of support the measure enjoyed anyway.

The suit by amendment opponents also cited the New Orleans election-day problems, when voting machines were delivered late in many precincts, and the argument that it should not have been on the ballot on a day when there was no statewide election. Morvant rejected those arguments.

The opponents also said they believed the amendment would affect private agreements between same-sex partners; the proponents dismissed those fears, saying private contracts would not be affected.

Gay witnesses for Forum for Equality spoke before the courts of their fears that private agreements made with their partners – ranging from funerary arrangements, to wills, to financial compacts – would be threatened by the amendment. “I consider all these arrangements to be subject to attack,” said Lawrence Best, a New Orleans lawyer who said he had been with his partner for 14 years.