Judge Strikes Down Ga. Ban on Gay Marriage

[kpete]

Judge Strikes Down Ga. Ban on Gay Marriage
By GREG BLUESTEIN, Associated Press Writer

ATLANTA - A judge has struck down Georgia's ban on same-sex marriages, saying a measure overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2004 violated a provision of the state constitution that limits ballot questions to a single subject.

The ruling by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell had been eagerly awaited by gay-rights supporters who filed the court challenge in November 2004, soon after the constitutional ban was approved.

Russell said the state's voters must first decide whether same-sex relationships should have any legal status before they can be asked to decide whether same-sex marriages should be banned.

more at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060516/ap_on_re_us/georgia_gay_marriage

[Chipper Chat]

1. Lavender alert: BIG FUNDIE MELTDOWN approaching.

I hear gnashing of teeth. Tee hee.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Canuckistanian]

3. GA the new sodom?

Will they start marrying their dogs now? Construct huge golden calves? Daughters convince their fathers to procreate?

[Freedom_Aflaim]

4. Hey thats kinda funny

First off, kudos that it was struck down.

But what I find humorous is that voters must first approve gay marriage before they can ban it.

[Che_Nuevara]

5. That's what makes this ruling so dangerous.

This opinion goes down in case law as saying it is within the bounds of the Georgia constitution to ban gay marriage.

[dogday]

6. At this rate

Gay marriage will never be passed.....

[Che_Nuevara]

7. THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING!

Did you folks read the article thoroughly?


"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.


This law was struck down because it precluded both same-sex marriages and same-sex 'lesser' unions on the same ticket. The judge is effectively making sure that the question comes back up at a later time as two questions: "Should same-sex marriage be banned?" and "Should same-sex couples be allow to seek a ;legal union that is legally not marriage?"

According to the article, 76% of the voting population voted for the movement. With a question structure as above, that number will only go up.

But the worst part is Georgia case law now reads that it is within the state's rights to ban same-sex marriage.

This ruling is bad news.

[swimboy]

8. Similar proposal in Virginia

Constitutional amendment proposed requires a single up-or-down vote on three matters:

1) marriage is between a man and a woman, no same-sex marriage allowed
2) no civil unions allowed
3) no contractual arrangements allowed between persons of the same sex if the arrangement approximates a benefit of marriage


Anyone interested in being honest would present these as three separate issues for three separate votes as a reasonable person could wish to vote for part of the proposal and against another portion.

The rabid right has bundled the three together to prevent a person who is afraid God will be angry if gay people get married, but doesn't mind if we visit each other in the hospital from voting to effect that outcome.

[Recursion]

12. Huh?

Not even commonlaw marriage? That's going to be a big problem if they get rid of it

[Prophet 451]

9. Won't matter

Much as I'd like it to make a difference, it won't. The Religious Reich will scream that the law was overturned on a technicality, that the judge the will of the people, there'll be some shouting about "activist judges" and the ban will be reinstated. In fact, depending how much mental energy Rove can divert from his legal problems, they may use this as the trigger point in a push to ban same-sex marriage.

[NoAmericanTaliban]

19. Welcome to DU

and while they froth at the mouth against gays their jobs & health care are being eroded. I never realized that hate is a family value. Wonder who Jesus will hate next - WWJH I like the way the right wingers claim to want gov't out of our lives, but in actuality they want to intrude more than anyone I known.

[Prophet 451]

26. Disconnect

I don't think they even connect the two. Republicans (the ones who still support Bush especially) are better at believeing contradictory things without thinking about them than anyone I've ever known.

[newyawker99]

21. Hi Prophet 451!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Prophet 451]

27. Cheers

Thanks mate.

[Zambero]

10. Ralph Reed is turning cartwheels right now

He has the perfect hot button issue with which to divert attention away from his messy finacial scandals. This ruling won't change anything, except to energize Georgia's far-right fundamentalist base around a single issue, everything else be damned.

[onehandle]

22. Yep. nt

[DaDeacon]

11. Damn't I'm sick of this shit!

This is a GREAT THING! It's great because you can now have an open and honest look at the tiers of this issue. This law was put in place as the jude said "(those) safeguards that preserve our liberties, because they ensure that the actions of government are constrained by the rule of law," I live in GA and was openly offended by by the vote as a Straight, Christian, Black Man. The rule of law had not been followed to allow a bigoted few the right to frame the issue the way they wanted.

[Che_Nuevara]

17. 76%, man.

Do you really think 'the rule of the law' is going to make a difference there? A difference of 27%? And would you really be satisfied with a "separate but equal" amendment? Please -- the law got struck down on a technicality, which will be fixed the next time it's on the ballot. And it will be passed in its correct form, and when it is challenged this case will be brought up as standing case law.

[RubyDuby in GA]

13. Despite what everyone thinks, this is not a good thing for GA Dems

From now until November 2008, Georgia Dems are either going to have to either speak for or against this judicial act. The gay marriage legislation divided our base voters in 2004 and they overwhelmingly didn't vote for it - say what you want about the wording of the bill on the ballot - it didn't fly with Dems.

Just when the Republican base was so divided with the immigration issue, they now have a wedge issue for Dems and a unity issue for their troops.

[sui generis]

20. ridiculous that it's a wedge issue for dems, but true.

what the heck do we stand for anyway if we can't agree on legal equality and equal treatment under the law for all taxpayers, for all Americans? It's like saying we don't agree that gays should have a full vote, or that what we're FOR is minimum wage and clean air that only applies to married heterosexuals.

We either learn how to get ALL of our base behind it or at least not in the way, or we will continue to get knocked around by it as a "wedge" issue, and that is the real weakness in the democratic party, not gay issues in and of themselves.

We're a "big tent" party, but if the tent is too big it makes its own weather and invites its own riots.

Then what's the point of a tent?

I'm perfectly willing to participate in this wedge. There are many democrats (and progressives even) who "support our issues"; including marriage or some facsimile of marriage, but who believe that we lost because of gay issues, and who better to blame than the gays?

If that reason has any truth to it whatsoever in places like Georgia, we lost because we didn't step up to the plate and address it and move on, because we LET it be a wedge issue within our own party, not because of gay-panic mongering in the broader population.

[knitter4democracy]

14. He left wiggle room, it seems.

Are they just going to rewrite it and put it on the ballot again? That's bad.

Why can't we all just live and let live?

[flashdebadge]

15. The bill is already being re-drafted to include the "correct" language.

It will pass. There is too much support for it in that state.

[kentuck]

16. Just like the judge struck it down in Massachusetts...

and that was all part of the plan...

[NoAmericanTaliban]

18. I live in GA where hate is a family value - voted against the amendment

I don't believe that amendments should be used to exclude rights - but to give more rights to people. They included a ban on marriage & same sex unions in this but the way the it was verbalized on the ballot lead you to believe it was only for marriage & the judge is right to throw it out. They will have to stick to separate amendments on the ballot. Until we get rid of the diebold machines in GA the GOP will always win. Both Max Cleland & Barnes had big leads before election day & ended up losing big. I voted absentee ballot & always will for big elections.

[ElboRuum]

23. My fave rave...

From Sonny Purdue...

Gov. Sonny Perdue said the decision ran counter to the voice of Georgia voters in defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

"The people of Georgia knew exactly what they were doing when an overwhelming 76 percent voted in support of this constitutional amendment," he said. "It is sad that a single judge has chosen to reverse this decision."

Question... Since when can voters, when acting as the majority, just wipe their butts with the constitution of the state of Georgia, Sonny?

Answer... Even the majority must act within the confines of the law, Sonny. Funny, I would think that the governor of the state would be more knowledgeable about such things.

They knew what they were doing alright, Sonny, and the way it was done it was against the constitution, so I believe 76 percent of the voters of Georgia can go suck it because they don't know or don't care about constitutional protections.

[RepublicanElephant]

24. are we suppose to believe that NOBODY

saw this problem when they wrote this amendment?

how convenient that a judge overturns it so sonny gets another issue to demagogue to get the rednecks to the polls in november (since he can't use the confederate battle rag any longer).

[ElboRuum]

28. The problem with the "majority dictators"

Is that they don't seem to realize that just because the majority voted for it doesn't mean it's legal. You know, they probably didn't think (like Sonny seems to be saying) that a judge would overturn a measure voted for by nearly 80 percent of the populace. Of course, the "majority dictators" don't understand that the judiciary is not directly answerable to the people. There's a lot of things they don't understand, now that I think about it.

[NobleCynic]

25. Given the amount of funding

an initiative or ballot campaign takes, it could have only been intended to fail. And why not? It is a great wedge issue. The lawyers consulted beforehand to make sure this was a legal proposal would be run out of practice and never see another client in the lobbying business if this failure wasn't intentional. No one allows millions of dollars in campaign funds to be wasted like that unless there was another purpose. And that is bringing the far right Christians to the polls just to vote that issue down, and while they are there anyways they might as well vote in a Republican or two. And more so, it gives the Republicans in the state another wedge issue: "Liberal judges".

The same thing is going on in my state. Bob Beers, a Republican state Senator running for governor, is pushing through an anti-tax initiative which is so poorly designed it would destroy the state's finances thoroughly, but because it covers many different types of taxes in one initiative it will be overturned by the Supreme Court of Nevada for the same reason. Initiatives or ballot questions may only be put forward in regards to one topic. In Nevada, Beers is trying to use it to spring board himself into taking governor this election year knowing full well his initiative can't possibly pass.

It's sick, but you almost have to admire the how savvy these moves are. They can look like they are trying to fulfill the far right's agenda without ever having to actually do it. The worst thing that can happen to a political party after all is winning. Once you've won and put all your agendas into law successfully, you have to issues left to run on. That is precisely what happened to the Federalist party in early America. It won, and having won, died. The Republicans can't afford to fulfill all of the far right Christian's goals for this very reason.