BREAKING: Georgia Same-Sex Marriage Ammendment Struck Down

[UDenver20]

...According to WSB News (Atlanta).

Will post a link as soon as I can find one...

[ccpup]

1. was this

amendment seeking to STOP same-sex marriage or ALLOW same-sex marriage. I can only assume, being Georgia, that it was to prevent it, but doesn't hurt to ask, right?

[SharonRB]

3. LOL

Not the exact wording as my response, but awfully close.

Owe me a Coke!

[SharonRB]

2. How was it worded? Is this good news or bad news?

Was it to allow same-sex marriage or to ban it? Being Georgia, I assume the latter, but I'm not sure.

[Charlie Brown]

4. The amendment

As you can see, section "b" goes far, far, far, beyond one subject. More importantly, though, section "b" did not even appear on the ballot.


http://www.sos.state.ga.us/elections/2004_constitutional_amendments.htm

(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.

(b) 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."

[Charlie Brown]

7. ...

[napi21]

10. Well, being a Georgian, I'm pleasantly surprised!

I know Coka Cola is headquartered here, and THEY pay health benefits to fanilies of employees wether they're married or not, and as far as I know, it includes same sex partners. It's a pretty powerful Company in Atlanta, and I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't have a hand in defeating this bill.

[Bigmack]

28. Wouldn't section B...

"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."
Violate the "full faith and credit" clause?

I'm married in Washington state... could Georgia pass a law invalidating my marriage in their state? I don't think so.

[trof]

31. Here's what's on the ballot in Alabama:

PROPOSED STATEWIDE AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE (1)

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide that no marriage license shall be issued to parties of the same sex and that the state shall not recognize a marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred as a result of the law of any other jurisdiction.

Now what's really weird is that this appears on my Democratic primary absentee ballot.
Why would it be in the primary election and not the general?

[dysfunctional press]

33. depending on the state constitution/laws...

it might have to be considered a referendum in the primary, that has to attain a certain level of voter support, before being placed on the ballot as a constitutional amendment.

[Hosnon]

40. I don't understand how something like this jives with Full Faith & Credit?

Anyone?

[faithnotgreed]

5. hi sharon - i would assume the same thing so therefore

im going to assume this is good news

but i better not make a definitive statement until i get all the facts (with a tip of the hat to the whole leopold/rove brouhaha that ive just been debating in another thread)

[SharonRB]

11. Hi, faithnotgreed

:hi:

How are you doing?

Sounds like it's good news. Score one for our side for a change - in the South, no less.

[faithnotgreed]

14. doing good - and hope you are

are you a pistons fan by any chance or do you limit your cheering for university of michigan and keith?

ha
yes - score one for the very good guys

[SharonRB]

20. I am a Pistons fan, but not an active one

I rarely watch the games with my hubby, but I certainly am happy when they win. He was ready to kick in the TV last night when they lost. I think they can still win two of the next three and go on to the finals.

[faithnotgreed]

21. heres to that - im with you and your dh

but i think they will win in the end (as all the good guys do)

take good care
im glad to see you around and to share in some good news

[Newsjock]

6. off the wire

ATLANTA (AP) — A judge has struck down Georgia’s ban on same-sex
marriages, saying a ballot measure overwhelmingly approved by
voters in 2004 violated a provision of the state constitution.

[RobertSeattle]

8. Karl Rove will love this

To him the gay marriage issue is the gift that keeps giving.

[SharonRB]

12. Oh, I misunderstood

I thought this was a new vote. I should have known voters in Georgia would never vote this down. Good for the judge, though.

[Charlie Brown]

9. I'm very glad to hear this, but why now

Judge Russell has been sitting on this for more than a year. I had assumed she was going to wait until after November to announce her decision. Now the bigot Rs will use this decision as a pitch to "values voters" on the dangers of "activist judges" (never mind that Russell is elected).

I do not know why the judge decided to announce this now, during election season, after waiting more than a year.

This will end up in the hands of Georgia's centrist Supreme Court.

[SharonRB]

13. And then all the way to SCOTUS, if necessary, I'm sure

Maybe that's their plan.

[wiley]

16. SCOTUS would never rule this legal

This will never make it to SCOTUS. Why do you think the morans are using state amendments? Targeted, regional, group specific hate-mongering.

[sadiesworld]

18. I think you answered your own question.

[wiley]

15. Great news for all Americans

I think the legislature just took a law from 100 years ago and replaced the word black (sure that is not the word they used) dark,red or yellow skinned, or disease carrying shifty-eyed pear shaped head foreigners with the words same sex marriage.

[JeffR]

17. I've been insisting to people ever since I left Georgia

That it isn't the hotbed of unvarying bigoted stupidity many people think it is. Here's a welcome bit of proof.

[wellst0nev0ter]

25. No, Just Everywhere Outside 'Lana

another former Georgia resident here, and even Athens outside of UGA is backwards.

[Breeze54]

19. Here it is.... Links to two articles

Judge Strikes Down Ga. Ban on Gay Marriage
By GREG BLUESTEIN (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
May 16, 2006 5:51 PM EDT

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 "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."

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/breaking_news/14594314.htm

++++++++++++++++++++++++

SEE ALSO:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-georgia-gay-marriage,0,5692865.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines

[cal04]

22. Just reported this on CNN

with Wolf

[TroglodyteScholar]

23. NICE!

I voted against it. I wouldn't vote for anything resembling a gay marriage ban, I suppose. But I was surprised it passed because the wording was so open. And I just *KNEW* something was missing from the ballot. It's downright dishonest to give the voters 1/2 of an amendment's text and tell them that's the whole thing they're voting on.

Besides being ideologically opposed to such a proposition, I really can't trust anything hatched up by Sonny or the fraudulently elected General Assembly.

[ruggerson]

24. It was struck down solely on procedural grounds

the ballot initiative had multi questions/subject in its text and this is in direct violation of Georgia's constitution.

This will have ZERO impact on '06, as they can't use this credibly as an example of judges ruling for supposed pre determined outcomes.

[Orsino]

26. ...just in time to get reworded and put on the '06 ballot.

Georgians can agree on nothing else so completely as they agree that whatever's wrong, it's the queers causin' it.

Idiots. I can't wait to move to a country with a Constitution.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[renaissanceguy]

29. Hi, FaithandReason.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

I'm not going to debate you about the origins of sexual orientation, but I will address the topic of civil unions/civil marriage. Generally, in this country, people have the freedom to enter into contracts with one another. As long as there is no harm being done, those contracts are generally valid by the law. Same thing with marriage/civil unions. You have two people who are not hurting anyone else, and who want to enter into a union (a "contract," if you will) with each other. Why shouldn't they be allowed to? Isn't it un-Christian to wish them harm, that is, to deny them the protections (hospital visitation, inheritance, medical decisions, etc.) that traditionally married people have? Also, in this country, two people can get married in a courthouse without needing a church's blessing. So, our government, the law, already validates it as a secular institution. So, what's wrong with two same-sex people wanting a certificate at the justice of the peace without asking for the blessing from your church? And the whole polyamory argument is a red herring. The issue at hand is a union between two people, not more.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[closeupready]

34. I believe DU's Skinner has indicated that members should be supportive

of same-sex marriage.

Aside from that, your argument is wrong on so many levels.

[depakid]

36. ummm- I don't think that's the case...

It's an issue that Democrats can rationally disagree on.

[depakid]

35. You may wish to go back and read your constitution

Because you might learn a few things about the "right" to contract.

Also, I suspect that you've read the science regarding sexual orientation very selectively- and don't really understand it well at all.

Od course, you could always try to prove me wrong on that....;-)

[renaissanceguy]

39. Rebuttal

You said:
As the law presently stands, gay couples can visit each other in hospitals, can give each other durable power of attorney over health care or any other power of attorney, can specify their inheritance, can assign each other as beneficiaries in life insurance policies. They can buy property together. Companies are now providing partner benefits. Gay couples, in general, are denied nothing.

My response:
Gay couples are absolutely not guaranteed those rights. I'd like to know what law you are referring to--certainly, it isn't DOMA. Any given hospital, agency, or organization can deny them those rights, if the state does not have some sort of law about it already. Additionally, states are passing marriage amendments that nullify these existing rights and void any contracts between two people simply because they are not legally married. Just look at the wording of the amendments. Compare all this to heterosexual unions--they are guaranteed these rights by law, in all states. No company or organization can deny them these rights because the law says so. By the way, all a heterosexual couple has to do is go to a justice of the peace and become married, earning over a thousand rights instantly. They can take those rights with them anywhere in the country. Gay couples can not do that at all. A (gay) married couple from Massachusetts would be treated as strangers, in the eyes of the law, in, say, Texas.

[phylny]

30. Enjoy your stay! n/t

[yellowcanine]

37. That judge better watch out. There may be a hurricane or tornado headed

his way. Or maybe a meteor. A Patwa has no doubt been issued already. Time to stock up on plywood, water, food and fuel!

[MelliMel]

38. If he struck down an anti-gay marriage amendment, then good! n/t