Finally, a sane, rational and compassionate judge supports gay marriage! Hee-haw! The Associated Press reports:
Judge Strikes Down Ga. Ban on Gay Marriage
By GREG BLUESTEIN, Associated Press Writer
5/16/2006
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.
The real issue, then, is defining the word "marriage," and not so much whether or not gay people have the right to marry. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines marriage in these terms:
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>I love this definition by George Bernard Shaw: "When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part."
Russell obviously subscribes to the traditional definition of marriage as a legally recognized union between man and woman, and she intimates that a union between two people of the same sex should be called something else. Fine. I think the term "civil union" suits many gay couples; if civil unions are recognized in all states, and "marriage" is strictly reserved for straight couples, then everyone will be happy. This should not, in any way, prevent gay couples from uttering the words "marriage" or "marry" when they refer to their civil unions. Now the question is, are there straight couples who'd rather go gay by adopting "civil union" instead of "marriage?" Will these straight couples be allowed to get married, err, "civilly united," because they feel that the word "marriage" has too much negative stigma attached to it?
The only people who want to preserve the traditional definition of marriage are sadly those who cannot see beyond definition. True marriage is not about definition or roles; it is about companionship, trust, honesty, mutual respect, mutual edification, and of course, unconditional love - at least - this is the kind of relationship that my partner and I have had in the last eleven years. Any rational person will tell you that gay marriages will not cause the human race to vanish, any more than straight marriages will establish perpetual world order. Yawn.
Here's another proof of the Catholic hierarchy's contempt towards ordinary, loving, and "normal" gay people and another reason I stopped going to church:
Boston Catholic Charities Halts Adoptions
By STEVE LeBLANC, Associated Press Writer Fri Mar 10, 4:09 PM ET
BOSTON - The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because of a state law allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children.
The social services arm of the Roman Catholic archdiocese, which has provided adoption services for the state for about two decades, said the law runs counter to church teachings on homosexuality."The world was very different when Charities began this ministry at the threshold of the 20th century," the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities, said in a joint statement with trustees chairman Jeffrey Kaneb. "The world changed often and we adapted the ministry to meet changing times and needs. At all times we sought to place the welfare of children at the heart of our work.
"But now, we have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve," they said.
Gov. Mitt Romney said he planned to file a bill that would let religious organizations seek an exemption from the state's anti-discrimination laws to provide adoption services.
"This is a sad day for neglected and abandoned children," Romney said in a statement. "It's a mistake for our laws to put the rights of adults over the needs of children.
Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said the archdiocese's decision was disappointing.
"All of the homes were good and loving homes and now through the pressure of the bishops, Catholic Charities is being forced to get out of the business," she said. "There are no winners here. The children are the ones who suffer."
The state's four Catholic bishops said this month that the law threatens the church's religious freedom by forcing it to do something it considers immoral.
Eight members of Catholic Charities board later stepped down in protest of the bishops' stance. The 42-member board had voted unanimously in December to continue considering gay households for adoptions.
Catholic Charities has been involved in adoptions for about a century but has had a contract with the state for the past two decades to provide such services to children with severe emotional and physical needs. Its contract with the state expires June 30.
In that time, Catholic Charities has placed 720 children in adoptive homes, including 13 who were placed with same-sex couples, Catholic Charities said.
In a 2003 document, the Vatican said gay adoption was "gravely immoral," and that children placed in such homes "would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood."
Some 682 foster children are waiting for adoption in Massachusetts, according to the state Department of Social Services. The bulk of adoptive children are placed by the department, rather than outside agencies such as Catholic Charities, the agency said.
Speaking of immorality, why does the Church assume that straight parents make better parents than gay ones? The reason there are hundreds and thousands of abandoned and neglected kids is due to irresponsible, neglectful and abusive straight parents, some of whom had been married more than once. The Church does not think that is immoral for once-divorced parents to adopt children (even though Jesus himself condemned divorce), but it is immoral for monogamous-never-been-married-before gay couples to do so. Note, too, that Jesus was silent about homosexuality.
I find it odd that the Vatican has not rebuked or punished priests who have fathered children in Third World countries. I also find it appalling that the Vatican remains obsessed with the union between the prick and the pussy, and fails to realize that it is possible for a child to be raised by gay couples in a loving and wholesome environment. And the child does not necessarily grow up to be gay.
