Activist Judge Strikes Down Ban On Homosexual Marriage, Overruling 76% of Georgia Voters

American FamilyAssociation ^ | American FamilyAssociation

[Iam1ru1-2]

A liberal activist judge has struck down a constitutional amendment in Georgia which made homosexual marriage illegal! She felt that she knew better than the voters how they should vote and threw out their ballots.

The constitutional amendment, passed overwhelmingly by 76% of the voters in Georgia, is now null and void.

The homosexuals are determined to win this battle. They know they will never win if the people have an opportunity to vote. So they are turning to liberal activist judges to force their will on the people. They intend to force homosexual marriage down the throats of Americans. They feel our children must be indoctrinated beginning in kindergarten that homosexuality is normal behavior.

On June 6 the U.S. Senate will vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) which defines marriage as being only between one man and one woman. Because of a power grab by activist judges like the one in Georgia, the MPA is the only way that the sacred institution of marriage will remain between one man and one woman. ________________________________________________________

Please call your two U.S. Senators today and tell them to vote for the Marriage Protection Act. If your Senator's lines are busy, please keep trying. They need to hear from you personally. Use these talking points to help you get your message across to them:

1) As a citizen concerned about the protection of marriage and the future of America, I am calling today to ask for your strong support for the Marriage Protection Amendment which defends marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It is my firm belief that only a constitutional amendment will stop "homosexual marriage" from becoming the law of the land.

2) Our children deserve both a mother and a father and public policy should promote this noble institution. I urge you to please give strong and visible support to the Marriage Protection Amendment when considered on June 6 by the U.S. Senate.

3) Because of a power grab by activist judges like the recent one in Georgia, the Marriage Protection Amendment is the only way that the sacred institution of marriage will remain between one man and one woman. If you do not vote for the Marriage Protection Amendment, you will be voting for "homosexual" or "same-sex marriage."

4) Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing back from you on this important matter.

____________________________________________________

To find out the phone number of your Senators, go to:

Your Senators

[Spktyr]

This is why I prefer an elected judiciary, as we have in Texas.

[Reactionary]

We need to push for elected judges throughout the country, and we need to do it now.

This fascist nonsense has got to stop.

[ml/nj]

What's going on down there ping.

ML/NJ

[gondramB]

This story is not an accurate representation of the situation.

There were all kinds of media stories at the time that the amendment would never stand up in court because the authors ignored the rules for Georgia constitutional amendments. Even after it was clear that legal analysts were saying it had to be rewritten to be constitutional they refused to rewrite it. They put it on the ballot in a really stupid fashion.

This is not the judge's fault.

[Ronin]

I am pretty dense here. How can a judge strike down an amendment to the state constitution. Judges are supposed to interpret the law and the constitution is by definition, the highest law.

Someone should tell this judge to pack it in.

[FlingWingFlyer]

More judicial tyranny from another Leftist kook "judge." These morons need to be taken out and strung up. This isn't our government anymore. It belongs the judicial tyrants and a bunch of above the law maggots in Congress. Warrants don't apply to Congressmen. They have diplomatic immunity.

[gondramB]

>>I am pretty dense here. How can a judge strike down an amendment to the state constitution. Judges are supposed to interpret the law and the constitution is by definition, the highest law.

Someone should tell this judge to pack it in.<<

The amendment procedure for the Georgia constitution requires separate amendments for each issue - its like a line item veto for voters. This amendment had three parts. We all knew it was unconstitutional from the start. The people who wrote it and pushed it were political idiots. They ignored all the legal advice and analysis.

[goldstategop]

I'm amazed a judge has the audacity to declare the constitution unconstitutional. It either is the supreme law of the land or it isn't. Judicial tyranny run amok and this case in Georgia provides even more powerful impetus for abolishing judicial review in toto.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

[rlmorel]

Hey!! Who does she think she is? Doesn't she know MASSACHUSETTS is the state that wants to be known as the Judicial Activist Capitol of The USA?

[Reactionary]

"They ignored all the legal advice and analysis."

What "three parts" were involved? The article mentions a single issue - a ban on homosexual marriage. It does not mention anything else.

Besides, no one believes the Nazi judge wouldn't strike it down if it was approved by 98 percent of the people, vetted by thousands of legal scholars, and flown from Heaven upon the wings of angels.

That's how the judicial fascists operate. Always.

[gondramB]

>>I'm amazed a judge has the audacity to declare the constitution unconstitutional. It either is the supreme law of the land or it isn't. Judicial tyranny run amok and this case in Georgia provides even more powerful impetus for abolishing judicial review in toto.<<

Its a procedural thing. They didn't follow the right procedure to get it ratified. Everybody knew it at the time - it was in all the papers but they went ahead instead of breaking the ammendment into three parts so it would be legal.

[gondramB]

>>What "three parts" were involved? The article mentions a single issue - a ban on homosexual marriage. It does not mention anything else.<<

The ban on gay marriage. The ban on civil unions. Ban on recognizing gay marriages from other states.

For better or worse this is how the amendment procedure works in Georgia - its why we have hundreds of amendments instead of dozens. Its like a line item veto for voters that keeps things from being bundled even when they are closely related.

[Minn]

This is probably a good thing. It’s not like gay marriage is an eminent threat in Georgia. This allows for another amendment on the ballot in another election, bring out the base one more time.

[Vigilanteman]

I agree. The Georgia legislature is out to lunch on this. They, by majority vote, could simply overrule the judge and set aside her decision as not within the jurisdiction of the court. If she continued to press the decision, impeachment would be fully in order.

It is high time the supposedly co-equal branches of the legislature and the executive grow some balls against judicial tyranny.

I rather like Teddy Roosevelt's pronouncement: "The court has made their decision, now let them enforce it!"

[little jeremiah]

More Nazgul action.

[DaveyB]

...The ban on gay marriage. The ban on civil unions. Ban on recognizing gay marriages from other states.

I know there are three periods there but one issue - marriage is only between a man and a woman.

[Republican Wildcat]

That makes as much sense as saying you have to separate murder statutes for a knife, gun, lead pipe, candlestick, etc.

[gondramB]

>>I know there are three periods there but one issue - marriage is only between a man and a woman.<<

And if that's what the amendment had said - that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman - we wouldn't have a constitutionality problem. But they added two more sections.

As a separate issue, it may not be constitutional to restrict the kind of contractual people can make (domestic partnerships) based on gender but we never even got that far - the way they wrote this it was gonna be struck down from day one.

[gondramB]

>>That makes as much sense as saying you have to separate murder statutes for a knife, gun, lead pipe, candlestick, etc.<<


They wrote the amendment with three parts - it was foolish wording. You have to be careful writing an amendment in Georgia this is a known problem -it has come up over and over.

I am unsure whether they were afraid they couldn't get 50% to ban domestic partnerships or if they simply ignored all the legal advice. its one thing to say we the people and the government have no responsibility to give encouragement and breaks for gay marriage - marriage is for promoting the best way to raise children - and that means one man and woman. But its different to say they can't form private contracts because they are gay. That's a different legal issue.