
A state judge in Georgia has struck down a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage approved by voters in November 2004, saying the measure violated the state constitution's procedural requirements, which exist to prevent voter confusion and protect the constitutional process.
The trial court ruling, which came on Tuesday, is in response to a lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal, the ACLU of Georgia, and law firm Alston and Bird on behalf of a group of voters, legislators, and faith leaders. The state is expected to appeal the ruling, which will go directly to the Georgia supreme court.
"This court is well aware that Amendment One enjoyed great public support," Judge Constance C. Russell wrote in her ruling. "However, the test of law is not its popularity. Procedural safeguards such as the single subject rule rarely enjoy popular 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."
On November 2, 2004, Georgia voters approved an amendment to the state constitution that, among several other things, bars same-sex couples from marrying. Efforts to keep the amendment off of the ballot failed. The Georgia supreme court agreed with a lower-court finding that prevented judicial review until after the election. The plaintiff group refiled the case immediately following the election, leading to Tuesday's ruling.
"Judge Russell's decision is well within established law," said Johnny Stephenson, a partner at Alston and Bird. "This case is about making sure that whenever we seek to alter the constitutional rights of the people of this state—regardless of the underlying subject matter—the process followed by the legislature is lawful and proper. This ruling upholds that principle and thereby protects the civil liberties of all Georgians."
"Just because an issue is a political hot button right now doesn't mean that people can run roughshod over rules put in place to protect the Georgia constitution from exactly this kind of heated political debate," added Jack Senterfitt, senior staff attorney in Lambda Legal's Southern regional office in Atlanta. (The Advocate)
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
Be the first to comment on this story.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.