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.
Exactly who has the right to be "for" or "against" the union of any two people?
If we allow a ban on gay marriage, how far from the inception of arranged marriage only are we?
I can't see where heterosexuals have made a rollicking success of the ONE MAN ONE WOMAN concept....the divorce rate exceeds 50%!!! And, have none of us learned to beware of the verbiage of a rule? ONE MAN ONE WOMAN, a prelude to outlawing divorce?
Well, I'm not pro gay marriage but neither am I against it BUT I am against all this crazy anti gay marriage stuff. It even happened here in BLUE Oregon.