Georgians split on marriage ban

Both sides of gay-rights issue find comfort in judge's decision

  • Follow Metro

ATLANTA --- Gay-rights groups in Georgia see reasons for hope in the ruling of a federal judge who struck down California's ban on homosexual marriage, but Georgia politicians vow to fight it here.

All three major-party candidates for governor said Thursday they favor keeping the gay-marriage ban in Georgia's constitution. Voters approved it overwhelmingly in 2004.

The Georgia Supreme Court upheld a 2006 challenge to how the amendment was structured on the ballot, but it has never ruled on the state constitutionality of barring homosexual couples from marrying.

The federal court judge ruling Wednesday did by concluding that it heard no evidence that the government had a rational interest in prohibiting homosexual marriage, which it called a violation of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it discriminates against gays.

"Indeed, the evidence shows (the ban) does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," wrote U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker.

Walker's decision is almost certain to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Until the nation's high court hands down a decision, Walker's opinion has no bearing on Georgia's ban.

"I think it's premature to say this would make a change in Georgia," said Debbie Seagraves, the executive director of the Georgia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. "It may begin the process that may lead to challenging the ban in Georgia."

The gay-rights group Georgia Equality estimates as many as 25,000 couples in the state could be waiting for a chance to marry, should the ban end. The group's executive director, Jeff Graham, felt positive.

"It does give us hope here that this judge has acknowledged that our relationships, our families, are not a threat to others," he said.

In California

SAN FRANCISCO --- Supporters of California's gay-marriage ban have filed an appeal of a federal judge's ruling striking down the voter-approved law.

The appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday was expected, as lawyers on both sides of the legal battle repeatedly vowed to carry the fight to a higher court if they lost.

On Wednesday, the federal judge in San Francisco overturned California's Proposition 8, which restricts a marriage to one man and one woman.

-- Associated Press

Comments (42) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Inquiring Lynn
0
Points
Inquiring Lynn 08/06/10 - 03:32 am
0
0
I hailed the 1976 Supreme

I hailed the 1976 Supreme Court decision outlawing ani-miscegenaton laws and I now hail this court rendering against the majority of Californians taking away the rights of same-sex couples! And thankfully, the military will open its arm to homosexuals in January!
The majority should never take away justifiable rights!

Brad Owens
4906
Points
Brad Owens 08/06/10 - 03:44 am
0
0
I support everyone having as

I support everyone having as much freedom as we can have. Getting married should be based on the couples feelings for each other, not some paranoid God Squad fear based, on a made up story from the Bible.

The Democratic Party always allows the GOP to set the debate.

This is still a debate? WOW.

carcraft
28447
Points
carcraft 08/06/10 - 03:48 am
0
0
Inquiring-name one society

Inquiring-name one society that says two men or two women can be married other than the American? Marriage exists to provide a foundation to CREATE families, establish responsibility and heirs etc. Marriage, as with driving, is a priviledge granted by the state and according to the tenth amendment is entirely with in the jurisdiction of the state. If marriage is a right and I can't find somebody to marry, can the state force someone to marry me?

freeradical
1175
Points
freeradical 08/06/10 - 05:02 am
0
0
The bible is the author and

The bible is the author and originator of marriage.

Specifically naming Male and female.

There is no written text predating the bible that details marriage.

Not one.

Try to quote one.

You can't do it.

God owns the rights , that will never change, and that is what

really frosts their giblets.

southernguy08
532
Points
southernguy08 08/06/10 - 05:03 am
0
0
I'll bet it isn't an EVEN
Unpublished

I'll bet it isn't an EVEN split, AC.

johnston.cliff
2
Points
johnston.cliff 08/06/10 - 05:06 am
0
0
Why didn't Judge Walker

Why didn't Judge Walker recuse himself from the prop 8 case? Didn't he think his prejudice was relevant? How can this totally biased opinion even be considered viable? The 9th circuit court will uphold the ruling (as they do with ALL freakishly left wing "decisions") and the case will be settled in the Supreme Court. In the meantime, once again, a single judge overturns the 70 million Californians who voted for prop 8.
It's no wonder that no informed pro gay groups take solace in the ruling of this extremely biased gay judge.

johnston.cliff
2
Points
johnston.cliff 08/06/10 - 05:10 am
0
0
This very slanted article

This very slanted article belongs on the opinion page and not in the news section. The laws clearly state that no man may marry another man or woman may marry another woman. This applies equally to straights as well as gays.
I know of no states that specifically denies the right of any person to form a civil union with another person.

RAINBOW
11
Points
RAINBOW 08/06/10 - 05:37 am
0
0
some people can make foolish

some people can make foolish statements,as shown by poster #1,read your Bible,learn what it says,it judges you now and you will be judged by it in the last day.Get real fellow.

Dixieman
17323
Points
Dixieman 08/06/10 - 09:58 am
0
0
Washington, DC (August 6,

Washington, DC (August 6, 2020) - The Supreme Court today, in an opinion by Chief Justice Hilary Rodham, in the case of My Goat Lester v. State of Georgia, ruled that Lester the Goat must be allowed to join the group marriage of Fred Lumpkin, his three wives, their underage nephew George and a piece of string they found in the driveway yesterday.
Noting that the barriers against polygamy had been struck down in 2015, against incest in 2016, against pedophilia in 2018, and against string in 2019 in a series of Supreme Court cases, legal commentators were not surprised at today's ruling. "Anything goes," Chief Justice Rodham stated at the beginning of the Supreme Court's opinion.
Since her appointment as Chief Justice following the mysterious death of former Chief Justice John Roberts in 2012 and her divorce from former President William Jefferson Clinton, Chief Justice Rodham has been at the cutting edge of the "new American Constitutional jurisprudence and par-tay" as she terms it.
She was asked at a news conference by the sole remaining reporter allowed to work for Fox News which clauses in the Constitution contained these "rights" and why 9 Supreme Court Justices should be able to override the strong opposition found in 98% of all Americans in the latest poll.
"Shut up," she explained. "We know what's best for you."

RAINBOW
11
Points
RAINBOW 08/06/10 - 06:07 am
0
0
sorry about that I meant 2nd

sorry about that I meant 2nd poster

Riverman1
93607
Points
Riverman1 08/06/10 - 06:20 am
0
0
If two guys get divorced I

If two guys get divorced I wonder who gets to keep the house? Wait...I figured it out...never mind....you don't want to know.

corgimom
38381
Points
corgimom 08/06/10 - 06:22 am
0
0
As soon as the US started

As soon as the US started making property, probate, tax, and other laws favoring married couples, that took it out of the Bible. The US has written its laws to give many legal rights to married couples.

This is a secular thing. The Bible doesn't say anything about who inherits property, who can make medical decisions for people, who are responsible for other people's debts- these are all man-made laws.

The US is not governed by the Bible, it's governed by the Constitution and laws. We feel as Americans that middle Eastern countries should not govern their countries using the Koran, but these same people think the Bible should rule the US.

But interestingly enough, if you go by what the Bible says, multiple marriages WERE allowed.

Dixieman, your logic is flawed. The law has long recognized, for centuries, that minor children are treated differently than adults. We have all sorts of laws pertaining to children that do not apply to adults. And how you can equate two adults wanting to be married to an adult who wants to prey upon a child, or an animal, is stunning.

But hey, best wishes to your goat. Happy is the goat that the sun shines upon.

chasboy
0
Points
chasboy 08/06/10 - 06:34 am
0
0
corgimom I like the way you

corgimom I like the way you think. We are always on the same page. We are also the minority.

themaninthemirror
0
Points
themaninthemirror 08/06/10 - 06:56 am
0
0
If anyone listened to Neal

If anyone listened to Neal Boortz yesterday, he completely changed my view on this issue. While it may be immoral, and completely reprehensible to those of us who have christian values, if Adam and Steve want to get married, it really isn't going to change one thing in our lives. It has no bearing on our heterosexual marriages, our heterosexual preferences, we don't have to change our lifestyles one iota to accommodate them. We just need to teach our children that it is not an acceptable practice, and live and let live.

tomclem
0
Points
tomclem 08/06/10 - 07:07 am
0
0
The simple biblical truth is

The simple biblical truth is that homosexuality or being "gay" is a SIN condemable by God. Those who partake of such are knowingly committing sin without regard for God's will. So be it I say!!!! Happens every day. Who am I to judge those who do so besides what's been said which is biblically grounded. Problem I have(being I am a christian) is supporting a government elected by the people for the people, which supports men on men and women on women marriage whether state or federal. It is our responsibility to voice our opinion to try and sway Satan's attempt to say everything is equal and OK. This whole decision is crazy, similar to gay christian churches. I mean come on folks, denial of one's actions and the consequences in God's presense has gotten just plain ignorant. Have people gotten that blind in the backward society we have? I think it's that people just don't care nor believe the bible anymore.

datarelease
2
Points
datarelease 08/06/10 - 07:15 am
0
0
y'all are ghey

y'all are ghey

carcraft
28447
Points
carcraft 08/06/10 - 07:24 am
0
0
themaninthemirror-what

themaninthemirror-what happens when tom wants to marry his goat? George wants three wives and is a muslim, On what grounds do you deny him his "rights" isn't it religious discrimination if you don't allow him to have three wives? When he divorces them, you think child support is fun now?

edreformfan
0
Points
edreformfan 08/06/10 - 08:08 am
0
0
@Carcraft, I don't really buy

@Carcraft,
I don't really buy into the "parade of horribles argument." A relationship between two consenting adults is totally different than a relationship between adult-child or adult-animal. Marriage is not merely for pro-creation, but stands as a symbol of enduring love and commitment. While I do not approve of my church supporting gay marriage, I fail to see a rational basis for a State withholding such a right from homosexuals. When a state creates a Right, such as marriage, certain constitutional protections then apply under the 14th amendment, and the state must operate within the confines of the Constitution.

TrukinRanger
1748
Points
TrukinRanger 08/06/10 - 08:11 am
0
0
I'll just say I agree with
Unpublished

I'll just say I agree with Corgimom & Chasboy.

johnston.cliff
2
Points
johnston.cliff 08/06/10 - 08:16 am
0
0
themaninthemirror, the

themaninthemirror, the subject has never been whether or not gays play house, it's been about using the law to give special privleges and redefining the word marriage. This is just another continuation of what happens after the nose is under the tent.

edreformfan
0
Points
edreformfan 08/06/10 - 08:20 am
0
0
@Dixieman, There is a much

@Dixieman,
There is a much stronger argument that the State has a rational basis for prohibiting marriage between 6 people as this would cause complexities involving taxation, property, etc., whereas marriage between two homosexuals only changes the sex of the people involved. While allowing homosexuals to marry does go against the "traditional" understanding of marriage, allowing six people to marry seems to defy the purpose of marriage, which is to unite two individuals to the exclusion of all others.

AWyld1
3
Points
AWyld1 08/06/10 - 08:24 am
0
0
Marriage is a religous

Marriage is a religous ceremony sanctioned by the state. In that ceremony it is the joining of a man and a woman. I have no problem with same sex couples having some law passed that says they can cohabitate and make medical, monetary and other decisions for each other but as far as marriage being a constitutional right they are being denied? Negative...they have the same right to marry as anyone else...I couldn't marry someone of the same sex either...

disssman
6
Points
disssman 08/06/10 - 08:26 am
0
0
Inquiring lynn. I am all for

Inquiring lynn. I am all for gays in the military with the stipulation that the partner assuming the male role in lesbian engagements be forced to shower with hetrosexual men, and homosexual men with feminine feelings shower with hetrosexual women. As to the toilets, follow the same procedures. To do otherwise would be a violation of these peoples rights to freely assemble. In case you didn't know, the military still uses community showers and toilets restricted to men and women without regard to their sexual leaning and urges.

Local Interests
40
Points
Local Interests 08/06/10 - 09:06 am
0
0
corgimom hit the right issue:

corgimom hit the right issue: this is really a civil rights issue. Churches can certainly make their own choices on how they choose to define marriage. The problem is that federal state agencies should not be bound by church rules when determining the rights of citizens. If two people are legal citizens they should be afforded the same rights of citizenship as everyone else.
J.C.: If this judge should have recused himself because he was gay, does that mean straight judges should also recuse themselves because they are straight? Same with christians? It sounds like you're kind of stretching the reasons for recusal.

Runner46
0
Points
Runner46 08/06/10 - 09:08 am
0
0
I agree with the ban on

I agree with the ban on marriage for gays. However, there should be a similar formal civil union contract available for gays. Call it a Civil Union and define what rights and benefits go along with that contract. Just don't call it a marriage. Marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples. Gays need something separate, but equivalent.

TakeAstand
13
Points
TakeAstand 08/06/10 - 09:26 am
0
0
Exactly Runner46. No one is

Exactly Runner46. No one is saying opposite sex married people are superior as humans to any other, but they are different!!! I get so sick of them using the excuse that some hetero couples cant produce children so theres no difference. They compare a medical disability to an absolute impossibility in nature of them having kids. Just that right there and the fact civil unions arent good enough adds to the fact they cant compromise and accept being accepted but yet they have to try force it down peoples throat. They don't even realize they are creating more hatred when they try to do that, or they don't care and its not about being accepted or having equal rights its about power. they can have equal rights, just call it something else.... because it is something else!

edreformfan
0
Points
edreformfan 08/06/10 - 09:50 am
0
0
TakeAStand, I can sort of

TakeAStand,
I can sort of understand where you are coming from; however, "separate but equal" has been attempted in the past and failed miserably.

Dixieman
17323
Points
Dixieman 08/06/10 - 09:57 am
0
0
Polygamy has been around a

Polygamy has been around a lot longer (centuries) and is a lot more common (found in many countries) and widely accepted than gay "marriage" so why should we outlaw it if gay couples can marry? Why not group marriage?

momster59
0
Points
momster59 08/06/10 - 10:07 am
0
0
johnston - wouldn't a

johnston - wouldn't a heterosexual Christian have to recuse himself also?

AWyld1 - "Marriage is a religous ceremony sanctioned by the state. In that ceremony it is the joining of a man and a woman."
Then please explain to me why atheists are allowed to marry if it has nothing to do with legal rights instead of religion.

baronvonreich
1
Points
baronvonreich 08/06/10 - 10:14 am
0
0
tomclem Friday, Aug. 6 8:07

tomclem Friday, Aug. 6 8:07 AM This whole decision is crazy, similar to gay christian churches. I mean come on folks, denial of one's actions and the consequences in God's presense has gotten just plain ignorant. Have people gotten that blind in the backward society we have? I think it's that people just don't care nor believe the bible anymore.
---------------------------
Interesting.....so what about all the gluttonous members, pastors, and priests in their fat Christian churches every Sunday followed up by trips to Ryans and Golden Corral?

Back to Top

Top headlines

Kettle donations rise in 2014

After a disappointing showing last year, donations to the Salvation Army's local Red Kettle Campaign have risen nearly 20 percent in 2014.
Search Augusta jobs