GA Supreme Court upholds marriage ban (on ballot)

[Charlie Brown]

http://www2.state.ga.us/Courts/Supreme/press_releases/pr_body.html#new

It's at the bottom of the page. 5-2 decision.

[Mallifica]

1. That is so shitty . . . .

It obviously contains more than a single subject. All that will appear on the ballot pertains to defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman. The ammendment, though, will do so much more. (section B). There is a significant enough chunk of the population that would endorse civil unions and domestic partner benefits that would oppose gay marriage. Georgians, however, are not allowed to choose between the two subjects, and most don't even know that they're voting on two.

ugh.

[Laelth]

2. Hunstein concurred specially. Sears dissented.

Gotta love the women on the Georgia Supreme Court! They rock. I note that Justice Benham, whom I greatly admire, joined Justice Sears in the dissent.

Ultimately, though, this decision's not that bad. Court basically says (Laelth's paraphrase), "Hey, Georgia legislature, you're welcome to put anything you want on the ballot, and we won't interfere. You can amend the Constitution to say that all people over 6 feet tall have to get their feet chopped off if you want. That's fine, but whatever you do, if you do succeed in amending the Constitution, we reserve the right to find the changes you made unconstitutional. We just can't rule that a law is unconstitutional until it becomes the law."

That's all. Not too bad a ruling, really. Justices Benham and Sears, however, are already letting it be known that if the law passes, they'll vote to overturn it.

imho ...

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--slight editing for clarity.

[Iris]

3. This ammendment makes me so sick.

Targeting a group of people in this way is subhuman, imo.

[Laelth]

4. I agree, the Amendment sux.

After having read the opinion carefully, I've changed my mind about the court's ruling, too. The majority opinion is in error, I believe. The dissent got it right.

:thumbsdown:

-Laelth

[Iris]

5. I haven't read the whole thing,

but I just can't believe the 2nd half can hold up in court. Wasn't this ruling about the way they basically put 2 laws in 1 ammendment?

[Charlie Brown]

6. They reasoned that they couldn't decide its legality

'till AFTER it became law. They buckled to political pressure.

[Laelth]

7. Yes. That's correct.

There's a section of the Constitution that says you can't amend more than one part of the Constitution or more than one part of Gerogia's code, O.C.G.A., at the same time. The word "marriage" appears in a number of places in O.C.G.A. Thus, changing the definition of marriage changes a number of code sections at the same time. That's unconstitutional, and the court should not have allowed it--or so it would seem. The Court has set a questionable precedent.

-Laelth