Judge voids Georgia's ban on Gay Marriage

[irishgrl]

Judge voids Georgia gay marriage ban

2 hours, 18 minutes ago

ATLANTA (Reuters) - A Georgia judge on Tuesday struck down a ban on same-sex marriage that was approved by voters in 2004, saying it violated the Southern state's constitution.
ADVERTISEMENT

Judge Constance Russell of Fulton County Superior Court ruled that the measure violates the state's "single-subject rule" as it asked voters to decide on multiple issues in one amendment, said Jack Senterfitt, an attorney with gay rights group Lambda Legal Defense.

"We believe this is a victory for all Georgia voters, no matter your beliefs on the underlying issue," said Senterfitt, whose group had challenged the ban along with the state arm of the
American Civil Liberties Union.

Georgia was one of several states where voters solidly backed state constitutional amendments in 2004 to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue voiced disappointment in the ruling and said he was weighing his options to protect the will of the people.

"This decision highlights the effect activist judges (What about busybody fundies????) can have on our system of governance," Perdue, a Republican seeking re-election this year, said in a statement. Perdue noted that 76 percent voted in support of the constitutional amendment two years ago.

(Additional reporting by Jim Loney in Miami)

[foxyluva]

So glad to hear this - maybe there is hope for you Americans afterall

[Johnny Stew]

SCORE!

And in a Southern state, no less.

[irishgrl]

of course the Governor is mulling his options and there may be another stab at the law but its a nice slap in the face to all the fundies who want to narrow the freedoms of many Americans. And, if the Repugs lose seats in Congress, there may be hope yet for this country...

[becca]

I have always figured that if people need to distinguish gay commitments as different from their own straight marriages that they simply call it what it is, "same-sex marriage". I guess the real point is to try to make someone else pretend to change or else hide to suit them though, even if it's been happening from the earliest times. You'd think there would be better things to waste your time on than not allowing people who are married to each other the use of the word best describing them, and access to the various pluses and minuses that come with acceptance of that reality (married status).

It was so nice to see some evidence of progress here in Canada. I felt like it was the second advance our society had taken in my lifetime... the first was the moon landing in 1969 when I wasn't even two! I wish the same for my U.S. friends!

[Neb-Maat-Re]

Originally Posted by becca

"same-sex marriage"

The term in the UK and now Australia (at least, in the Australian Capital Territory - our equivalent to the District of Columbia) is "civil union".

Sounds a bit cold, really.

[foxyluva]

Originally Posted by Neb-Maat-Re

The term in the UK and now Australia (at least, in the Australian Capital Territory - our equivalent to the District of Columbia) is "civil union".

Sounds a bit cold, really.

New Zealand also has civil unions

[tynan88]

Originally Posted by foxyluva

New Zealand also has civil unions

Maybe they should all be called civil unions, they are no different and there shouldn't be a religious aspect, ie: what marriage is anyway.

[irishgrl]

California has Civil Unions and many protections for same sex partners under the law. Unfortunately, the brief rebellion for gay rights didnt accomplish much other than grab headlines.

I myself dont see why the "straight" community is so threatened by the "gay" community that it has to ostracize it and restrict gay rights. Even if you take into account that fundies hoist their Bibles as templates of morality, Homosexual behavior has been around in THOSE times too.

[strandinthewind]

The judge is this case had no option but to apply the GA Constitution's prohibition on more than one question because the language of Amendment One. Thus, as noted by this judge, many Georgians who oppose gay marriage may have been prohibited from supporting civil unions, which the Amendment also made illegal. So, the judge's ruling is correct.

Having said that, this Amendment passed by almost 77%, and any subsequent amendment banning only gay marriage will also pass by at least that much.

The problem is the religious conservatives (and apparently moderates and come liberals as 77% must include that) do not want just to ban gay marriage. They want the government to refuse to recognize any sanctioned union involving anything other than traditional heterosexual marraige between one man and one woman and then they want the government to give special rights only to that marriage. Everyone else in a consenting adult relationship must fend for themselves and will be denied many of the rights automatically given to that traditional heterosexual marriage.

In the end, I say again, the word marriage should be in no law and no governement entity should in any way sanction any form of marriage. That way the playing field is level for everyone and anyone wishing to provide legal rights to any partner(s) can do so by contract.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

The judge is this case had no option but to apply the GA Constitution's prohibition on more than one question because the language of Amendment One. Thus, as noted by this judge, many Georgians who oppose gay marriage may have been prohibited from supporting civil unions, which the Amendment also made illegal. So, the judge's ruling is correct.

Having said that, this Amendment passed by almost 77%, and any subsequent amendment banning only gay marriage will also pass by at least that much.

The problem is the religious conservatives (and apparently moderates and come liberals as 77% must include that) do not want just to ban gay marriage. They want the government to refuse to recognize any sanctioned union involving anything other than traditional heterosexual marraige between one man and one woman and then they want the government to give special rights only to that marriage. Everyone else in a consenting adult relationship must fend for themselves and will be denied many of the rights automatically given to that traditional heterosexual marriage.

In the end, I say again, the word marriage should be in no law and no governement entity should in any way sanction any form of marriage. That way the playing field is level for everyone and anyone wishing to provide legal rights to any partner(s) can do so by contract.

Jason, in Georgia, I have a feeling that the percentage of Conservatives to Liberals would be about 75 to 25, (if not higher) thus I highly doubt there are any Liberals in that 77%......

I agree with your point that "marriage" should not be legislated. I think this whole rabid hysteria about giving rights to gays is ridiculous.

[strandinthewind]

There was a polling breakdown released around that time which indicated many so called moderates and a small portion of liberals voted for this amendment - thus reaching the 77%.

I do wonder, however, if the ballot had been just to eliminate "civil unions" - would it have passed? I know many a religious zealot who would opt for civil unions because they recognize all people deserve protection under the law, gay people pay taxes as well, and you do not have to be a Christian to be an American citizen and be afford protection as such.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

There was a polling breakdown released around that time which indicated many so called moderates and a small portion of liberals voted for this amendment - thus reaching the 77%.

I do wonder, however, if the ballot had been just to eliminate "civil unions" - would it have passed? I know many a religious zealot who would opt for civil unions because they recognize all people deserve protection under the law, gay people pay taxes as well, and you do not have to be a Christian to be an American citizen and be afford protection as such.

So are you saying there is a modicum of common sense even in that corner of the Bible Thumping Universe?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

So are you saying there is a modicum of common sense even in that corner of the Bible Thumping Universe?

Now Now - let's not let our California craziness cloud our judgement - after all Californians were and apparently still are loathe to allow marriage

[becca]

I dislike how religious groups seem to believe they created and copyrighted the word and act of marriage. You would think only Christians married. Do they accept Hindu marriages? Native American marriages? The Spartans in Greece were pairing off in monogamous same-sex marriages long ago. To me the word marriage is a verb, it is something you do, you marry one with another. In wanting to promote monogamy and responsibility I have felt the Christian thing for me to do personally is to support marriages, period. It's positive for everyone and taking away nothing from myself or anyone else's relationships or commitments. Hopefully most people can get past this one day and apply the term that applies to what same sex couples are doing, which is marrying. Calling it all 'civil unions', while I understand the logic, won't I wouldn't think truly placate the anti-gay people really behind not recognizing same sex marriages. I think Holland has traditionally done that however, and have also been among the very first to accept same sex unions legally, but it is a very different country from the U.S.