DaytonCIM's Journal: Just when George thought "they" were back in the closet

Judge Strikes Down Georgia Ban on Gay Marriage

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.

"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. "The single-subject rule protects the right of those people to hold both views and reflect both judgments by their vote."

Russell said "procedural safeguards such as the single-subject rule rarely enjoy public support."

"But ultimately it is those safeguards that preserve our liberties, because they ensure that the actions of government are constrained by the rule of law," the judge wrote.

Jack Senterfitt, who challenged the amendment on behalf of gay rights organization Lambda Legal, said the ruling "protects the right of voters to make independent decisions on each independent issue."

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."

Perdue said the state is considering appealing the decision to the Georgia Supreme Court.

tsk tsk tsk

[ellem]

Can't win hearts and minds? Keep losing at the polls? Use the new improved Judiciary System to enforce your will.

Re:tsk tsk tsk

[RailGunner]

Can't win hearts and minds? Keep losing at the polls? Use the new improved Judiciary System to enforce your will.

And since that game plan has been effective for the left, why would they change it?

See also: Partial Birth Abortion Ban, which also passed with over 70% support and got struck down by a liberal judge.

Re:tsk tsk tsk

[ellem]

but but but... The elections were stolen! 9/11 was an inside job! Gore won and the Conservative Supreme Court ... the Judiciary is a Concervative tool! 2000! War for Oil! 2000!

Re:tsk tsk tsk

[RailGunner]

You missed one: HALLIBURTON!!

Re:tsk tsk tsk

[leoPetr]

"Partial Birth Abortion" is a made-up term with false emotional implications. What it banned was dilate-and-extract procedures [wikipedia.org] that are usually performed in the second trimester. I don't follow US politics well enough to know the legal reasons for the federal ban being struck down, but a ban in Ohio was upheld because it only banned elective abortions. I disagree with that, but I recognize the legitimacy of the court's rationale.

Judge calls people stupid

[TheConfusedOne]

Really, that's what it boils down to.

If there is concern about whether a new legal status should be created for "non-traditional" couples then make that a separate ballot initiative from the people who want this.

Right now the only legal status is marriage and the people voted on that. Where's the confusion?

Bad, bad decision.

[Zeriel]

Have to agree with the Republicans here--I'm all for same-sex marriage, but I'm even more all for the rule of law and rule of democracy.

The judge made a bad call, and it oughta be reversed.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Bad, bad decision.

[Zeriel]

See, I'm not sure I buy the legal analysis that the ballot measure ACTUALLY conflated two single concepts, that might be our disconnect.