Marriage amendment struck down in Georgia

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Marriage amendment struck down in Georgia

Excerpt:

Judicial activism struck Georgia in a big way with a judge’s recent scrapping of a constitutional amendment preserving marriage as being between one man and one woman on the grounds that it was "presented incorrectly to voters." The amendment was on the ballot in November 2004, and the wording of the question--"Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman?"--was apparently so confusing that almost 76 percent of Georgians were "fooled" into voting for it.

Instead of directly addressing the issue of gay marriage itself in her ruling, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance Russell decided to throw out the amendment on the perceived technicality that its ballot presentation violated the state constitution’s single-subject rule ("When more than one amendment is submitted at the same time, they shall be so submitted as to enable the electors to vote on each amendment separately") because it required voters to decide on marriage and civil unions in a single amendment.

In digging up and dusting off the "single-subject" guideline, Russell ruled that Georgia’s voters must decide whether same-sex relationships should have any legal status before they can decide whether gay marriage should be banned. "People who believe marriages between men and women should have a unique and privileged place in our society may also believe that same-sex relationships should have some place — although not marriage," she wrote.

Apparently of the opinion that banning both gay marriage and civil unions in one fell swoop is lumping together two completely unrelated subjects, Russell wrote that "the single-subject rule protects the right of those people to hold both views and reflect both judgments by their vote." This ruling, which was incomprehensibly called "a victory for voters" (apparently referring to the 24 percent who voted against it) by an attorney for gay rights organization Lambda Legal, will not have an immediate legal effect in the state.

Georgia currently recognizes marriage as being only between one man and one woman, as provisioned in a state law passed by the legislature in 1996. Ironically, the 2004 amendment, which was worded almost identically to the existing law, was created in large part due to the unfortunate knowledge that an activist judge would one day find that law "unconstitutional." The full text of the amendment reads:

(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.

( No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.

Without a permanent amendment to the state’s constitution, the assault on traditional marriage will continue. In turn, Governor Sonny Perdue almost immediately appealed Russell’s decision to the state’s Supreme Court.

He requested an expedited review of the case and announced that, should the court fail to overturn Russell’s ruling by August 7, he would call for the state General Assembly to convene in a special session beginning August 9, so that a new amendment proposal (or proposals, if it is deemed necessary to address both marriage and civil unions) can be passed in time to meet the August 14 deadline for ballot language certification, putting a revised amendment on the ballot this November.

Link

[TexasTiger 12,865]

Marriage amendment struck down in Georgia

Excerpt:

Judicial activism struck Georgia in a big way with a judge’s recent scrapping of a constitutional amendment preserving marriage as being between one man and one woman on the grounds that it was "presented incorrectly to voters." The amendment was on the ballot in November 2004, and the wording of the question--"Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman?"--was apparently so confusing that almost 76 percent of Georgians were "fooled" into voting for it.

Instead of directly addressing the issue of gay marriage itself in her ruling, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance Russell decided to throw out the amendment on the perceived technicality that its ballot presentation violated the state constitution’s single-subject rule ("When more than one amendment is submitted at the same time, they shall be so submitted as to enable the electors to vote on each amendment separately") because it required voters to decide on marriage and civil unions in a single amendment.

In digging up and dusting off the "single-subject" guideline, Russell ruled that Georgia’s voters must decide whether same-sex relationships should have any legal status before they can decide whether gay marriage should be banned. "People who believe marriages between men and women should have a unique and privileged place in our society may also believe that same-sex relationships should have some place — although not marriage," she wrote.

Apparently of the opinion that banning both gay marriage and civil unions in one fell swoop is lumping together two completely unrelated subjects, Russell wrote that "the single-subject rule protects the right of those people to hold both views and reflect both judgments by their vote." This ruling, which was incomprehensibly called "a victory for voters" (apparently referring to the 24 percent who voted against it) by an attorney for gay rights organization Lambda Legal, will not have an immediate legal effect in the state.

Georgia currently recognizes marriage as being only between one man and one woman, as provisioned in a state law passed by the legislature in 1996. Ironically, the 2004 amendment, which was worded almost identically to the existing law, was created in large part due to the unfortunate knowledge that an activist judge would one day find that law "unconstitutional." The full text of the amendment reads:

(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.

( No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.

Without a permanent amendment to the state’s constitution, the assault on traditional marriage will continue. In turn, Governor Sonny Perdue almost immediately appealed Russell’s decision to the state’s Supreme Court.

He requested an expedited review of the case and announced that, should the court fail to overturn Russell’s ruling by August 7, he would call for the state General Assembly to convene in a special session beginning August 9, so that a new amendment proposal (or proposals, if it is deemed necessary to address both marriage and civil unions) can be passed in time to meet the August 14 deadline for ballot language certification, putting a revised amendment on the ballot this November.

Link

236632[/snapback]

I love the way the writer diminishes a constitutional requirement:

In digging up and dusting off the "single-subject" guideline...

"Guideline." Yeah, it's actually a command: ""When more than one amendment is submitted at the same time, they shall be so submitted as to enable the electors to vote on each amendment separately"

I'm reminded of Bill Murray in Ghostbusters, "Well, its really more of a guideline than a hard and fast rule."

I know the new brand of "conservatives" hate such things as "laws" and "Constitutions" that get in their way, but don't worry too much. This gives Republicans two more opportunities to stir up the base with anti-gay ammendments.

[quietfan 233]

I love the way the writer diminishes a constitutional requirement:

In digging up and dusting off the "single-subject" guideline...

"Guideline." Yeah, it's actually a command: ""When more than one amendment is submitted at the same time, they shall be so submitted as to enable the electors to vote on each amendment separately"

I'm reminded of Bill Murray in Ghostbusters, "Well, its really more of a guideline than a hard and fast rule."

I know the new brand of "conservatives" hate such things as "laws" and "Constitutions" that get in their way, but don't worry too much. This gives Republicans two more opportunities to stir up the base with anti-gay ammendments.

236651[/snapback]

Yes, regardless of one's feelings about gay unions or marriages:

Don't blame Judge Russell for enforcing the state constitution, blame the authors of the proposed amendment and/or ballot for not framing it in a constitutional manner to start with!

[CCTAU 3,326]

No problem. the governor will call a special session and we'll do it over again. Liberalism will not win here. Over 2/3 of the population of GA ratified this thing. And the amendment did not deal with 2 different amendments like libby judge said. The references to gay marriage and civil unions was used to mean "or any other name."

[japantiger 4,051]

I personally can't believe we even have to vote on something like this. Where in the hell is common sense. Suddenly 10,000 years of civilization is out the window so we can be stylish and not offend anyone...... what's next, monkey-love rights?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

The voices of 76% of the voters are being silenced by a liberal loophole. Like CCTAU said, Gov Perdue will bring it back to a vote and even more people will strike it down this time.

[TexasTiger 12,865]

I personally can't believe we even have to vote on something like this. Where in the hell is common sense.   Suddenly 10,000 years of civilization is out the window so we can be stylish and not offend anyone...... what's next, monkey-love rights?

236840[/snapback]

You don't have to vote on it. There is no gay marriage in Georgia that you need to "protect" yourself from. The first vote was to stir up the base to get them out for an unnecessary ammendment. This just plays into Republican hands so they can do it again. Twice. Ralph Reed should go out and raise some money for her re-election. I know he'll use the judge to raise some of his own.

[TexasTiger 12,865]

The voices of 76% of the voters are being silenced by a liberal loophole. Like CCTAU said, Gov Perdue will bring it back to a vote and even more people will strike it down this time.

236856[/snapback]

It sure is funny after listening to all those hypocritical Republicans cite, "Rule of law, rule of law" so indignantly when Clinton got a BJ, to see how few of them have so little regard for the law. So selective.

[CCTAU 3,326]

The voices of 76% of the voters are being silenced by a liberal loophole. Like CCTAU said, Gov Perdue will bring it back to a vote and even more people will strike it down this time.

236856[/snapback]

It sure is funny after listening to all those hypocritical Republicans cite, "Rule of law, rule of law" so indignantly when Clinton got a BJ, to see how few of them have so little regard for the law. So selective.

236871[/snapback]

Fortunately for you, you don't have to worry about it. WE here in GA will take care of this. The same way we are taking care of the immigration problem that your state is helping to create. So you worry about all the border crossings in Texas. And we'll keep our gays single, thank you very much.