Conservative victory in Georgia same-sex marriage rulingPosted by Craig Westover | 11:16 PM |
Although some conservative blogs are running this article as something negative -- It can happen here -- isn’t the judge’s rationale exactly what the claimed rationale is for an amendment? Isn't the judge saying, "let the people decide"?
ATLANTA, May 16— A state amendment banning same-sex marriage was struck down Tuesday by a judge who upheld the voters' right to limit marriage to heterosexual couples but cited procedural flaws in the wording of the amendment, which was approved by more than three-quarters of voters. . . .The judge’s ruling essentially says that the combination of defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman AND banning civil unions (the legal equivalent of marriage in Minnesota terms) effectively prevents voters from voting for a ban on same-sex marriage but voting against a ban on civil unions. In other words, people holding both those positions were denied a right to vote their conviction.
The Georgia amendment defined marriage as between a man and a woman, banned same-sex civil unions and said that same-sex unions performed in other states would not be recognized. The judge, Constance C. Russell of Fulton County Superior Court, ruled that the amendment violated Georgia's single-subject rule, which limits each amendment put before voters to one topic.
"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," the judge wrote. "The single-subject rule protects the right of those people to hold both views and reflect both judgments by their vote."
How can a conservative that believes the people should decide questions about who can and cannot marry object to a ruling that assures each and every voter that ability?