NationStates Jolt Archive

It's a procedural ruling, but one that has been long in coming - and doesn't even begin to actually address the many legal issues with the way this ban was passed (and that, of course, is in addition to the fact that the amendment itself denies civil rights).

http://www.ajc.com/search/content/auto/epa...2e62dc0095.html (http://www.ajc.com/search/content/auto/epaper/editions/today/news_44a63b2a072e62dc0095.html)

A Fulton County judge has ruled that the amendment to the Georgia Constitution that banned same-sex marriage, civil unions, partnership benefits, and any legal recognition of such unions was improperly voted upon and is thus invalid.

For a little background - I live in Georgia, and I voted (against, obviously) on this amendment. The whole way it was carried out was designed to deceive the voters of Georgia, and there have been several court cases pending ever since.

First of all, the amendment did more than one thing - already breaking (as was ruled) the single-subject rule in the Georgia Constitution. It states that a constitutional amendment in Georgia can only cover one subject. The purpose of this rule is obvious - it is to keep legislators from doing exactly what they did - attaching a less popular law to a more popular one to try and get the whole thing plugged into the constitution.

The law in question covered more than simply same-sex marriage. It did all of the following:

(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."

In other words, not only was gay marriage banned, but civil unions, domestic partnership benefits, and any recognition of same-sex unions from other states were also banned. This actually would void an Atlanta city law which ruled that companies have to provide partnership benefits. Now, we've all seen the polls (and I'm sure these lawmakers have as well). While support for same-sex marriage is still given by the minority in many areas, support for some sort of recognition of same-sex unions is generally in the majority.

So, lets see what was actually placed on the ballot, shall we?

( ) YES

( ) NO
Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman?"

See the problem here? The ballot covered the issue of marriage only, while conveniently leaving out the fact that the amendment actually did much, much more.

On top of that, as a concerned (and curious) voter, I specifically asked for an actual copy of the amendment at my polling place. Guess what? They weren't available. Nobody there had a copy of the actual text of the amendment, leaving voters who had not looked up the text ahead of time (and even those who had, who might have been confused by the lack of detail into thinking that they were voting for something different) to see nothing more than what I have quoted above. Angry, I called some of the people at the Secretary of State's office and was told that the full text of the amendment had been printed in the newspaper. Of course, not every voter can or does read the newspaper. What about voters who do not speak English or are illiterate? They are able to vote - but this means they were never provided with a full copy of the amendment on which they were to vote.

Looking into General Assembly proceedings, we see that the possibility (or, in fact, the certainty) of this issue was brought up by those in the legislature seeking to change the text on the ballot. It was voted down - leading any rational person to see that the sole intent of the Assembly was to deceive the voters into voting for this in higher numbers than they otherwise would have. And now they claim that a judge has "thwarted the will of the people" in a vote that could not possibly be said to represent the will of the people.

A similar lawsuit, which brought up both the single-subject rule and the misleading text on the ballot has been before the Georgia Supreme Court for years, but has gotten stalled. In that lawsuit, there are several petitioners who state that they voted for the amendment based on the text in the ballot, but do not agree with banning civil unions, partnership benefits, and the like. So what does this tell us? Will of the people? Or will of the legislature that intentionally misled them?

Now this is interesting. Since the Amendment breaks no federal laws nor violates the US Constitution, then this really does not have a leg to stand on. So I will say that I do not support the blockage of the amendment. If it violated federal law, then I would support the block but since it doesn't, I cannot support the block.

Oh and Dempub? I'm seeing nothing in there in regards to Civil Unions.

Why does everyone want the admendent banning Gay Marriage to stand if they're for Gay Marriage? It makes no sense! I voted against that also in that election.


Oh and Dempub? I'm seeing nothing in there in regards to Civil Unions.
Then you don't know how to read in between the lines then.

--snip--

Wow, this is pretty cool. I really hope this can be used as precident for overturning Oregon's same bigoted legislation.

Clearly an illegal amendment. It can't be allowed to stand.

Clearly an illegal amendment. It can't be allowed to stand.

So how is it illegal when it doesn't violate any federal law?

So how is it illegal when it doesn't violate any federal law?

Please read the entirety of the OP. The state's own constitution doesn't allow it .

Please read the entirety of the OP. The state's own constitution doesn't allow it .

AHH!! But now there's an amendment TO the Constitution of the State of Georgia. Under Georgia Law, if the Amendment was passed then that gets overridden and this becomes the new law of the state of Georgia. You see how this works?

AHH!! But now there's an amendment TO the Constitution of the State of Georgia. Under Georgia Law, if the Amendment was passed then that gets overridden and this becomes the new law of the state of Georgia. You see how this works?

Only if the Amendment specifically overules the single-subject rule. Since it fails to do so, the original rule stands and the amendment is in violation of that rule.

AHH!! But now there's an amendment TO the Constitution of the State of Georgia. Under Georgia Law, if the Amendment was passed then that gets overridden and this becomes the new law of the state of Georgia. You see how this works?

You responded to quickly to have read anything, so I'll do it for you...

"Judge Constance Russell did not rule on the merits of allowing gay couples to marry. Instead, she said the measure violates the state constitution's single-subject rule because it required voters to decide on marriage and civil unions in a single amendment."

I.E. you're wrong.

Now this is interesting. Since the Amendment breaks no federal laws nor violates the US Constitution, then this really does not have a leg to stand on. So I will say that I do not support the blockage of the amendment. If it violated federal law, then I would support the block but since it doesn't, I cannot support the block.

Oh and Dempub? I'm seeing nothing in there in regards to Civil Unions.
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." "No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage" That means that civil unions, designed to give the benefits of marriage without marriage, are banned under this law.

Also the way the ammendment was passed breaks Georgia law.

So where in the state constitution does it say it? I want to see it written.

AHH!! But now there's an amendment TO the Constitution of the State of Georgia. Under Georgia Law, if the Amendment was passed then that gets overridden and this becomes the new law of the state of Georgia. You see how this works?

If the constitution doesn't allow amendments of that nature then the amendment is not valid. Georgia would first have to pass an amendment allowing multiple-issue amendments before this could be allowed.

Now this is interesting. Since the Amendment breaks no federal laws nor violates the US Constitution, then this really does not have a leg to stand on. So I will say that I do not support the blockage of the amendment. If it violated federal law, then I would support the block but since it doesn't, I cannot support the block.

What part of the fact that it violated the State Constitution's single-subject rule did you miss?

Do only federal laws count these days? State Constitutions and laws aren't actual law?

Oh and Dempub? I'm seeing nothing in there in regards to Civil Unions.

No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage.

I'm sorry, is a civil union not a union that is entitled to benefits of marriage? And here I thought that was the whole point of the people opposed to same-sex marriage suggesting them....

What is a civil union then? Does it declare a person a plant or something like that?

AHH!! But now there's an amendment TO the Constitution of the State of Georgia. Under Georgia Law, if the Amendment was passed then that gets overridden and this becomes the new law of the state of Georgia. You see how this works?

Only if the amendment was passed as per the rules of passing amendments.

It was not.

Your argument is like saying, "I know that 3/4 of the states didn't pass an amendment to the Federal Constitution, but that doesn't matter because it is an amendment and therefore it stands."

Only if the amendment is passed properly can it take affect.

Only if the amendment was passed as per the rules of passing amendments.

It was not.

Your argument is like saying, "I know that 3/4 of the states didn't pass an amendment to the Federal Constitution, but that doesn't matter because it is an amendment and therefore it stands."

Only if the amendment is passed properly can it take affect.

I'm still waiting on where in the GA Constitution this block is stemming from.

So where in the state constitution does it say it? I want to see it written.


Paragraph III. One subject matter expressed. No bill shall pass which refers to more than one subject matter or contains matter different from what is expressed in the title thereof.

Seems explicit enough to me.

Seems explicit enough to me.
*bows*

Thank you for showing it to me. It is much appreciated.

Homosexuality is icky anyway, and it says in the bible that God doesn't like it, so I don't see any problem with the government not allowing homos to get married to each other. Maybe if they wanted to marry a woman it would be different. Anyhoo, it seems like a good law to me except they leave out the part about stoning the gays to death.

Jesussaves strikes again.

What depresses me is the only reason this stupid thing was not passed is because of a problem with how the bill was setup not the stupid fucking content of said bill

Now this is interesting. Since the Amendment breaks no federal laws nor violates the US Constitution, then this really does not have a leg to stand on. So I will say that I do not support the blockage of the amendment. If it violated federal law, then I would support the block but since it doesn't, I cannot support the block.

Oh and Dempub? I'm seeing nothing in there in regards to Civil Unions.
It violates the Georgia constitution stating that any amendment can have only ONE TOPIC.

Oh and Corneliu? Open your eyes:


(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."

Looks pretty clear to me.

What depresses me is the only reason this stupid thing was not passed is because of a problem with how the bill was setup not the stupid fucking content of said bill
Well, it may be that the people of Georgia don't want gay unions to be called marriage, but perhaps the majority have no problem with calling them civil unions. The way the bill was written on the ballot it seemed to be limited to marriage.

*bows*

Thank you for showing it to me. It is much appreciated.
See, now, you oculd have looked that up for yourself, but hey, why bother when you can trumpet how right you are without having to look into anything?

See, now, you oculd have looked that up for yourself, but hey, why bother when you can trumpet how right you are without having to look into anything?

It depends on how you would like to interpret what the law says. Frankly, I support civil unions and I can see where people are saying that this bans those too but union has many different interpretations and meanings. Marriage is a union and I was coming from the phrase the union of marriage or the marriage union.

I guess it can go either way.

Well, it may be that the people of Georgia don't want gay unions to be called marriage, but perhaps the majority have no problem with calling them civil unions. The way the bill was written on the ballot it seemed to be limited to marriage.
Doubtfull but I still feel it is stupid of them them trying to hold a monopoly on the word marrige

What depresses me is the only reason this stupid thing was not passed is because of a problem with how the bill was setup not the stupid fucking content of said bill

I do find that depressing as well. But, considering the general society of Georgia, it is good to know that there are many that support only the first portion, and not the rest. It doesn't reach to the level of true equity, but at least they aren't complete homophobes.


It depends on how you would like to interpret what the law says. Frankly, I support civil unions and I can see where people are saying that this bans those too but union has many different interpretations and meanings. Marriage is a union and I was coming from the phrase the union of marriage or the marriage union.

I guess it can go either way.

The "marriage union" is dealt with in part A. If that was all they wanted to deal with, then part B would be completely spurious. "No union" means "no union", not "no marriage union." Thus, no legal construct which granted the benefits of marriage would be recognized, were this amendment to pass.

Meanwhile, it might be important to note that this amendment is already being used as defence in a court case in Atlanta. Before the amendment was ever voted on, Atlanta had a law requiring companies that had spousal benefits to extend partnership benefits. A country club here refused to follow the law, and was served with a fine, which they have been trying to get out of ever since. Once the vote was taken, the country club changed their defence to argue that the new amendment made the Atlanta law unconstitutional, and thus they don't have to pay the fine.

(Of course, be that as it may, I would argue that, since the amendment was not present at the time, they cannot claim that it applies in their situation. At the time the fine was levied, the law was not unconstitutional.)

Doubtfull but I still feel it is stupid of them them trying to hold a monopoly on the word marrige

I don't actually doubt it - and I don't think the legislature did either. The fact that many people support civil unions, but not same-sex marriage was specifically brought up when the legislature was discussing this bill, and an move to break it up into two issues was voted down. Some of those on the lawsuit currently before the Georgia Supreme Court claim that they fully support civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc., but simply do not support extending marriage to same-sex couples.

You and I can agree that this is a silly viewpoint, but the fact remains that many people hold it - possibly enough to have defeated the second portion of the amendment, had all of the voters known that it even existed.

The "marriage union" is dealt with in part A. If that was all they wanted to deal with, then part B would be completely spurious. "No union" means "no union", not "no marriage union." Thus, no legal construct which granted the benefits of marriage would be recognized, were this amendment to pass.

Ok now I see where this is going. Thanks.

Meanwhile, it might be important to note that this amendment is already being used as defence in a court case in Atlanta. Before the amendment was ever voted on, Atlanta had a law requiring companies that had spousal benefits to extend partnership benefits. A country club here refused to follow the law, and was served with a fine, which they have been trying to get out of ever since. Once the vote was taken, the country club changed their defence to argue that the new amendment made the Atlanta law unconstitutional, and thus they don't have to pay the fine.

(Of course, be that as it may, I would argue that, since the amendment was not present at the time, they cannot claim that it applies in their situation. At the time the fine was levied, the law was not unconstitutional.)

Indeed I will agree with you here.

Only if the Amendment specifically overules the single-subject rule. Since it fails to do so, the original rule stands and the amendment is in violation of that rule.
This raises an interesting question. What if the Amendment itself did overturn the single subject rule, but then also violated the rule by including clauses concerning other subjects? Would this require multiple amendment? The problem here is that the amendment allowing such an amendment would not have been passed until said amendment was passed.

This raises an interesting question. What if the Amendment itself did overturn the single subject rule, but then also violated the rule by including clauses concerning other subjects? Would this require multiple amendment? The problem here is that the amendment allowing such an amendment would not have been passed until said amendment was passed.
At the time it was voted upon the original "one subject" rule was still in effect. Therefore the vote is invalid and the new ammendment hasn't actually passed.

Now this is interesting. Since the Amendment breaks no federal laws nor violates the US Constitution, then this really does not have a leg to stand on. So I will say that I do not support the blockage of the amendment. If it violated federal law, then I would support the block but since it doesn't, I cannot support the block.

Oh and Dempub? I'm seeing nothing in there in regards to Civil Unions.


A STATE judge ruled that under STATE laws it was invalid. Federal law is irrelevant, this was decided under state law.

AHH!! But now there's an amendment TO the Constitution of the State of Georgia. Under Georgia Law, if the Amendment was passed then that gets overridden and this becomes the new law of the state of Georgia. You see how this works?

If I take out the state of Georgia's constitution, take a yellow crayon and write on it "black people must die" that doesn't make a state constitutional amendment.

The US constitution has very specific instruction on how the constitution must be amended. If an amendment fails to follow those instructions, it's invalid, and not an amendment.

Don't follow the rules, and it doesn't count.

This seems to suggest that Georgia's constitution has a similar thing, a very specific set of rules that must be followed in order for the amendment to be valid. This judge said that this amendment failed to follow that procedure, and thus never happened.

There is a procedure that much occur in order for an amendment to be legal, it did not occur, ergo it is not legal. This has nothing to do with civil rights on its face and everything to do with procedure.

A STATE judge ruled that under STATE laws it was invalid. Federal law is irrelevant, this was decided under state law.

Technically, she's a county superior court judge. The state is planning to appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court (which already has a similar case pending). Maybe piling more cases on will make them get off their butts and rule on it.

Technically, she's a county superior court judge. The state is planning to appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court (which already has a similar case pending). Maybe piling more cases on will make them get off their butts and rule on it.


Heh, well ok I was being a bit too simplistic. More to point, this is an issue of state constitutional law, not federal law, constitutional or otherwise.

Heh, well ok I was being a bit too simplistic. More to point, this is an issue of state constitutional law, not federal law, constitutional or otherwise.

=) Indeed. :fluffle:

And, in truth, I would argue that even further restrictions should be in place for this sort of thing. A voter should, for instance, be able to get a copy of any measures she is voting on at the polls. I can't say that what they did on that was illegal - because there is no such law in this state - but I would argue strongly that it should be.

=) Indeed. :fluffle:

And, in truth, I would argue that even further restrictions should be in place for this sort of thing. A voter should, for instance, be able to get a copy of any measures she is voting on at the polls. I can't say that what they did on that was illegal - because there is no such law in this state - but I would argue strongly that it should be.

I'd agree with that. Again it's purely hypothetical as it wasn't actually the law, but yeah I agree with what you're saying.