ATLANTA --- As the number of states legalizing same-sex marriage grows, Georgia remains locked into a ban voters added to the state constitution. Some experts say there's a chance that ban could disappear.
Same-sex marriage or civil unions are now legal in six states, either through legislative action or court decisions.
The wave might not be quick to hit Georgia. Three out of four voters in 2004 supported adding a ban to the state constitution on top of a state law in place.
Still, the topic is becoming an issue in county and municipal elections and might be a factor in next year's gubernatorial and legislative races, said political consultant Bill Crane of Atlanta-based Hudson/Crane.
"Though the issue is largely being driven by gay-rights activists and organizations like the ACLU, it is also already a popular question at candidate forums for the 2009 Atlanta mayoral race," he said.
Paul Cates, of the American Civil Liberties Union's Gay and Lesbian Rights Project, doesn't expect Georgia voters to quickly switch, but the McDonough, Ga., native said that from his vantage point in New York, court challenges could force the change.
Challenges are already filed in federal district courts that could reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
The most prominent challenge is to California's ban, filed by former Bush administration solicitor general Ted Olsen on behalf of a couple. Mr. Cates and some legal experts think Mr. Olsen's arguments that the ban discriminates against homosexuals could be persuasive under the U.S. Constitution's equal-protection clause.
Other legal scholars are doubtful. They note that marriage has generally been left to the states and that the Supreme Court only prohibited states from banning interracial marriages in 1967 because race appears three times in the U.S. Constitution. Sex does not.
There is another provision in the U.S. Constitution, the full-faith-and-credit clause, that requires states to recognize each others' laws. But it has a loophole that would prevent a same-sex marriage challenge from succeeding, says Michael Broyde, a professor at Emory Law School and the director of the school's Center for Law and Religion.
No state has to recognize a law from another state if it is "repugnant" to public policy and values, he said. States have prevailed in using that exception to not recognize polygamous marriages, those between first cousins and underage spouses.
Only 32 percent of Americans support gay marriage, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. That's the reason most gay-rights groups urge waiting and because a loss in the Supreme Court could cement legal opposition for a generation.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2010. All Rights Reserved.
Votes mean nothing. The will of the people means nothing. All that matters is that a liberal judge can override the will of the people and create new law. This is how America ends: with a whimper.
Oh, there's a difference between the "gay-rights movement" and the ACLU? And 32% of Americans support gay marriage? Not in any votes, only on p.c. non-binding voice polls. When it comes vote time, that % falls below double digits. Also, Walter Jones, there's a difference between gay-marriage and civil unions. A surprisingly large % of people condone civil unions to decide property rights and responsibilities. The national problem is devaluing the term "marriage" to include the gay union.
"repugnant" LOL
What about polygamists’ rights? What about prostitutes' rights? They'll open a can of worms...
Interesting that in the states where same-six marriage is legal, society still exists, heterosexuals still marry, the government is intact and the world hasn't come to an end.
left wing ultra liberal trash. just the kind of puke obama wants to finish off this country. constitutions mean nothing in this new age of socialist, liberal crap.
Exactly, grouse. But it's not worth arguing with the likes of these.
they are just a bunch of sick preverted people.
There is no need to recognize a marriage of same sex partners. Besides being contrary to nature, there are other contracts in which gay persons can enjoin themselves. And what about multiple partner relationships? Why can't those be legitimized under a contract? Why stop with only couples in a Marriage? Marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples, and it should remain such.
Marriage is to be between a man and a woman ONLY!!! Sodomites should not be allowed to marry.
Take this issue to the SCOTUS and get a final CONSTITUTIONAL decision. There should never be legislating from the bench as in MA.
Thanks Edward and God will be proud of you... That is Bible! God have Mercy on those who believe otherwise!
grouse, only because 90% of the state disagrees with the courts decision is the state able to continue as best it can. As the population becomes more and more gay in these states, the situation will change.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by a DEMOCRAT Clinton, states that no state has to recognize another state's marriage of same-sex couples.
I think it's still illegal for your wife to slobber on the hum bone in GA
Depends on whether your wife is male or female, rufus.
no rufus, that was removed several years back.. but it was for a good many years, in fact anything aside from standard missionary was illegal until then..
With all the economic problems in the country this will cause more. How about men petitioning for foreign men to get a VISA to enter the US. How about men marrying other men causing their employer to have to pay for their buddy's medical and dental. It's just BS!
Guess what all you hate mongers. We don't live in a direct democracy. Our Founders were very intelligent to create a Republic where a constitution allows the minority to rule with a separation of powers so courts can protect and minorities. If you have a problem with that then go move to a third world country so you can get go off on your lynch mob tirades.
IF the Gay/Lesbian/Transvestite/Transsexual/Bisexual/Polygamist/Pedophile/Sadist/Masochist/Hedonist/Groper/Gazer/Masturbation/Peeping Tom/Movement wanted rights, they'd admit that they are sick and demand their rights under ADA. They'd get farther along declaring their unnatural perversions a disability. BUT, they claim that they are perfectly normal. YEAH RIGHT!