A state constitutional amendment to protect marriage, that was overwhelmingly approved by Georgia voters in 2004, has been struck down by a judge who ruled that the measure violated the state's single-subject rules for ballot questions since it addressed issues other than gay marriage, such as civil unions and the power of Georgia courts to rule on disputes arising from same-sex relationships.
"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," said Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance Russell, who made the ruling. Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue said he was let down by the decision, and that he would call a special session of the Legislature to propose another amendment to ban same sex marriage. "I am very disappointed by this decision to countermand the people of Georgia's voice in defining marriage in our state as a union between a man and a woman," said Perdue. "The people of Georgia knew exactly what they were doing when an overwhelming 76 percent voted to support this constitutional amendment."
Mike Johnson, senior legal counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, said that the ruling underscores why it's important in the planning stage to make sure the language in a marriage amendment will survive a court challenge. He also stressed that this ruling reminds us why there is a dire need for a federal marriage-protection amendment.
Related Tags: Georgia, Gay Marriage, civil union, Same Sex marriage, Constance Russell, Sonny Perdue, James Dobson, Focus on the Family, Alliance Defense Fund, Mike Johnson, Marriage amendment
4 comments:
I guess where I'm at right now is that I oppose legal marriages on pragmatic grounds because too many people make too big of a deal out of them as social approbation of their cultural worldview against the other side.
I, on the other hand, keep a distinction between God's ideal for marriage and the concrete legal frameworks for marriages that we have in our fallen sinful world. That doesn't mean I want an anything goes approach to legal marriages(like legalized polygamy.), but I don't want to get worked up as much about potential legal stuff that obviously falls short of the Biblical ideal, but that one could argue is justified on account of the continued sinful state of humanity and our world.
I wd much rather go after a range of other issues that impact family values and stability and that are likely to get more bipartisan support and thereby be more successful in getting passed.
Wedge issues are great for tipping elections, but they don't reliably result in serious legal change and there ain't a snow-flakes chance in hell that there's going to be a fed'l amendment on heterosexual marriages anytime in the near future and so it is poor stewardship of our resources to spend our activism energies pressing for it.
dlw
It's the home stretch on the second to last semester for me (hopefully!). Pragmatically I don't differ all that much from you on a number of things, except I fall at about the 60% side of defending marriage. My greater concern is the secondary issues that come following the deconstruction of something like traditional marriage. I also am not willing to give this up on the ground that one man one woman is God's intended order, a message he clearly lays out in scripture. Is this THE issue for me? No, but it is important nonetheless. God doesn't tell us to choose an either/or approach to being a Christian. We have to take care of the poor, protect the weak, build up believer, reach the lost, prepare the next generation etc. It is a lot, and will require sacrifice on our part. I'm in.
Big Chris
I think the best way to subvert the secondary issues is by choosing one's battles carefully on the other issues.
I am totally against biological and theological determinism(my genes made me do it, or "God made me Gay so it must be okay!"), and sexual libertinism/neo-paganism(it shdn't be wrong to love someone, or "An ass is an ass is an ass..."(see the french canadian movie "The Decline of the American Empire" for neo-paganism in motion.)).
I personally believe that we need to use discernment to judge what we can and cannot change about our fallen world. I believe that consistent with Gunter Dorner's theory that our sexual orientations are based on the hormonal balances formed in our brains while we are fetuses is the possibility that in the future we will be able to intervene so as to prevent the future onset of homosexual orientations.
dlw
I hope you can eventually get around to read and respond to my recent post on this subject.
dlw
Post a Comment