From the
AP
ATLANTA - 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."
In 2004 another 10 States implemented Bans similar to that of Georgia's - with Texas following soon after.
In many of these cases, like that of Georgia, the ballot measures in question actually changed the state Constitution - but the move today by this judge apparently argues that the proceedure used was invalid. An arguement that ironically reminds me of the failed attempt by
SF Mayor Gavin Newsom to invalidate an California State Law banning same-sex marriages.
California's highest court unanimously struck down San Francisco's attempt to legalize same-sex marriages Thursday, saying Mayor Gavin Newsom had illegally defied the state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Ruling exactly six months after the first weddings were performed, the state Supreme Court also declared by a 5-2 vote that none of the 3,955 couples who flocked to City Hall in response to Newsom's decree was ever legally married or entitled to the rights of spouses. Advocates of same-sex marriage were dismayed but said the more important battle would be fought when the court addresses the constitutionality of the state's marriage law. Same-sex couples and the city have sued in San Francisco Superior Court, saying the law discriminates on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. The case could reach the state's high court in a year or two.
The Court in California argued that Newsom's attempt to unilaterially overrule the law on the grounds that it was at odds with his interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution (as would a Unitary Executive) was invalid procedurally and that the proper procedure was to file a suit against the law itself and have it stricken down by winning the arguement in court.
There is still a strong chance that the California Law may follow Georgia's and be stricken as unconstitutional - but the other 11 state measures may be somewhat more difficult if procedural requirements similar to Georgia's do not currently exist in their state Constitutional. It may require a federal suit on the basis of the 14th Amendment - which guarantees equal protection under the law for "all persons within the jurisdiction of the state" - in order to ultimately defeat these measures.
The issue of gay-marriage is not something that mainstream democrats have generally embraced. Even DNC Chairman Howard Dean made a recent faux pas by claiming that the Democratic Platform was that "marriage is between a man and a woman."
On the other-side of the argument the right-wing of the Republican Party has been quite vocal about this subject arguing that protecting the sanctity of marriage also protects from the horrors of incest and or polygamy - but it seems to me that both incest and polygamy can and do occur across gender lines. This arguement to my mind tends to indicate the archiac view of many on the right who equate gay people with sexual predators, molestors and abusers - a view that does not include the possibility that same-sex couples can be as loving, caring and committed as any other couple.
But shouldn't those of us who value marriage be focused on the quality of a couples relationship, rather than a litmus test on the membership of that couple? And isn't one guage for a strong domestic relationship, one that is free of abuse?
The truth is that Domestic Abuse is no small matter in America, but overwhelmingly this crime is commited by men against women in cross-gender couples - and not among couples of the same sex.
According to stats from the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence:
- 1 in 4 Women will experience Domestic Violence
- In 2001, 20% of crimes against women was intimate partner violence, compared to just 3% for men
- In 2001 85% of domestic violence victims, were women
- In one study 33% of victims stated the offender was a spouse. 14% of victims stated the offender was a former spouse. 53% stated the offender was a current or former girlfriend of boyfriend
The stats do not indicate that same-sex couples are completely free of abuse [Update: Far from it as noted in the comments] - but it seem to me that if we want to "Protect Marriage" we first need to learn to protect abuse victims, rather than limit the rights of gays, by disallowing them to marry the person of their choice.
Certainly we also need to protect people from the abusive and destructive impact of incest, and being manipulated into other potentially unhealthy and abusive situations such as polygamy. But none of this has anything to do with the gender of the persons involved.
What evidence is there that gays are more prone to incest or polygamy? <snark> Ever been to Utah? (Which happens to be one of the 12 anti-Gay States) </snark>
We have a long way to go before we truly begin focusing on the real "sanctity of marriage" - but possibly, today's decision in Georgia by Judge Russell has move us one step closer to doing just that.
Vyan
