« Ind. Courts - Don't you just love it? | Main | Courts - Take note: Voter backlash continues in Pennsylvania »

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Law - Georgia same-sex ruling interesting on several levels

A brief NY Times story today reports:

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 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."

I'm trying to obtain a copy of the ruling. "One subject" constitutional provisions are designed to prohibit legislative logrolling -- several years ago I authored a lengthly article titled "Enforcing Indiana's Constitutional Requirement that Laws be Limited to One Subject," available here.

The Georgia ruling is also interesting because, to use a cliché, the ink was not yet dry on the state trial judge's ruling when both the Governor of Georgia and members of the legislature were threatening to call a special session if the state Supreme Court did not act. Some quotes from this story in the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

Gov. Sonny Perdue said Wednesday that he will call a special session of the state Legislature on Aug. 9 if the Georgia Supreme Court does not hear an appeal by Aug. 7 of Tuesday's court decision striking down a state constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages.

The governor made the comments in a speech to the Atlanta Press Club on Wednesday.

Earlier in the day, state Attorney General Thurbert Baker said the decision would be appealed and that his office would request an expedited hearing.

Fulton Superior Court Judge Constance Russell ruled Tuesday that the measure to ban gay marriage was presented incorrectly to voters. She 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.

"In my opinion, the decision by the Fulton County Superior Court is wrongfully decided," Baker said Wednesday. "I intend to press the Georgia Supreme Court to quickly correct the Superior Court's error and re-instate the language adopted by Georgia voters in 2004." * * *

Also on Wednesday, a key legislative leader called for a special session to re-address gay marriage if the courts don't reinstate the constitutional amendment.

"If unresolved by the end of August — or resolved in opposition to the people's vote — I fully support a special session," said Senate President Pro-tem Eric Johnson (R-Savannah). "Marriage between a man and a woman must be protected."

An August special session would allow a debate a few weeks before the 2006 elections on an issue that spurred social conservative voters to the polls in 2004 to pass the original amendment. Republicans say it will boost their chances of retaining the governor's mansion and the General Assembly if voters are drawn to the polls to vote on the gay marriage ban again.

[More] Here is the trial court's decision, thanks to this Jurist article, which even has links to the briefs.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 17, 2006 04:12 PM
Posted to General Law Related