Georgia’s Gay Marriage Ban Loses with Judicial TKO

Oopsie! They put too many subjects on the ballot (apparently only one is allowed) and Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell has at least temporarily killed Georgia’s ban on same-sex marriages. From MTV:

“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,” Russell wrote. “The single-subject rule protects the right of those people to hold both views and reflect both judgments by their vote.”

Gay-rights supporters had been anxiously awaiting Russell’s ruling since Jack Senterfitt, representing the gay-rights organization Lambda Legal, challenged the amendment in November 2004.

Aaron Margolis calls this legislating “immorality form [sic] the bench.” His prefered mechanism of morality seems to be wiping entire countries off the map and making illegal immigration a capital crime.

posted by Stephen Gordon
  • Scott

    And once again, the constitution is declared unconstitutional.

    We all may have our own opinions about gay marriage, but when the people pass a constitutional amendment, you need to fight back with another amendment, not by invalidating the constitution.

  • Devious David

    I told people this would happen. I’m glad. But they’ll just come back with another in November.

  • david sansregret

    banning people from marriage because they like to lick or get their a*s lick his against capitalism. You would need to ban marriage from big corporate president and their employee!

    Best regards.

  • Scott

    Devious David,
    are you suggesting that it is okay for who are appointed for life terms to overturn the will of the people as long as we view the court’s decision as right?

    Isn’t that the whole idea behind the neocon and liberal agendas? To overturn the will of the people because they think they know better?

  • FBC3

    Marriage existed for thousands of years before the state started to regulate it. It was a commitment made between two people in front of friends, family and God. That people actually believe getting a government license constitutes marriage is a testiment as to how well government “schools” brainwash their subjects. The only libertarian position on this matter is to get government out of the marriage business completely.

  • johnny

    FBC3 … I couldn’t of said it better, I agree completly

  • Devious David

    Scott, good question. My answer is that it is wrong for the people to vote away people’s rights. One of those rights is equal protection under the law. Someone has to overturn or overcome the people when they try to use their majority coalition to take from the minority. I really don’t care what means are used in that regard. I don’t give a damn about the will of the majority. I care about the rights of the minority.

    Things are screwed up on the grounds you state, and Kelo is just one great example. While that is wrong, what is just as wrong if not even more so is that the majority has access to a lever to take away your rights and their protections.

  • Vance B.

    The decision to strike down the ammendment had nothing to do with the merits of the amendment itself. It was the way in which it was passed that was ruled unconstitutional. This is not a “moral” (or “immoral”) decision, it was a legalistic one.

    It was widely predicted that the ammendment would be struck down long before it was passed or even printed on ballots. The Republicans who put it there were aware it would get struck down on legal technicalities, but left it as it was for two reasons: they can whine about “judicial activism” and they can get the measure put back on the ballot for this year and motivate the anti-gays in their base to get out and vote again.

  • Ian C

    Vance — and keep doing it, every electoral cycle, no less…

  • Scott

    Devious,
    I totally understand where you’re coming from, but how do we decide what is a ‘right’, and when two rights oppose each other, which wins?

    For example, look at the Illinois human rights act or harassment codes at most universities. Do the right to not be offended or demeaned supercede the right to free speach? Does the right to life supercede the second and fourth amendments (see operation clean sweep from Chicago)? Does the right to be free from hate supercede free speach? Half the stuff on this website could be considered hate speach or demeaning.

    In my opinion, the constition lists the priority rights that take precedent over any other rights. If we take that away, how do we know what rights exist?

  • http://uspolitics.about.com kathy

    quick note to let you know that I linked to you … seems odd seeing libertarians “down south.” ;-)

    Georgia is my home state, Washington my adopted one.

    Cheers! Kathy