Oh, the humanity!
Posted on 07/18/2002 8:00:14 AM PDT by ppaul
ATLANTA, Georgia - The Georgia Supreme Court unanimously agreed to let stand a ruling from the Georgia Court of Appeals that concluded that a Vermont civil union is not the equivalent of marriage, and even if a civil union were marriage, it may not be recognized as marriage in Georgia. The decision also upheld the Georgia Defense of Marriage Act, which limits marriage to one man and one woman. The case is known as Burns v. Burns. The case was successfully defended on behalf of the former husband, Darian Burns, through his attorney Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel.Susan and Darian Burns were divorced several years ago. Darian has custody of the three children and Susan retains visitation rights. The two entered into a Consent Decree Visitation Agreement which provided that neither party could have overnight stays with the children during such times as either one co-habited with an adult to whom he or she was not married. On July 1, 2000, the State of Vermont enacted a civil union law, and on July 4, Susan and her female companion obtained a Vermont civil union and then returned to Georgia where they continue to reside. Susan then filed papers in court arguing she could visit the children while her lesbian companion was present because, she claimed, the two were now legally married. She argued before the Georgia Court of Appeals that the Vermont civil union was the equivalent of marriage and that Georgia should recognize it as such, that Georgia's Defense of Marriage Act was void, that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional and that her right to privacy was violated. The Court rejected all these arguments.
Writing for a unanimous Court of Appeals, Judge Miller stated that Susan's position "has a flawed premise; she and her female companion were not married in Vermont but instead entered into a 'civil union'". The Court went on to say that "even if Vermont had purported to legalize same-sex marriages, such would not be recognized in Georgia, the place where the Consent Decree was ordered and agreed to by both parties …" The Court further noted that the Georgia Defense of Marriage Act "clearly states that it is the public policy of Georgia 'to recognize the union only of a man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.'" Citing the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, the Court also noted that Georgia "is not required to give full faith and credit to same-sex marriages of other states." The Court further noted that, "What constitutes a marriage in the State of Georgia is a legislative function, not a judicial one, and as judges we are duty-bound to follow the clear language of the statute. The Georgia legislature has chosen not to recognize marriage between persons of the same sex, and any constitutional challenge to Georgia's marriage statute should be addressed to the Georgia Supreme Court." Following this ruling, Susan asked the Georgia Supreme Court to reverse the decision. On July 15, 2002, a unanimous Georgia Supreme Court declined to disturb the Court of Appeals' decision. This now brings to an end the first case in the country to rule that a Vermont Civil Union is not portable outside Vermont, that a state defense of marriage act may ban same-sex marriage, and that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act does not require one state to recognize out-of-state same-sex unions.
Staver noted that he was pleased with the ruling. "The argument that Georgia should recognize a Vermont civil union as marriage is akin to an argument that Georgia should recognize a Vermont driver's license as a pilot's license. Civil unions in Vermont are not the equivalent of marriage," noted Staver. The Burns case is the first of its kind in the country to address the portability of Vermont civil unions, a state Defense of Marriage Act, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Link to article HERE
The courts in Georgia, apparently, still have a moral backbone.
OMG! A spark of human sanity lives! It lives!
All we need now is one heck of a fire to move this logic along.
BTW, how much is the latest AIDs conference gonna cost heterosexuals this year?
Oh, the humanity!
Oh, Puhhhhleeeeze!
From the article: The two(Susan and Darian, the parents) entered into a Consent Decree Visitation Agreement which provided that neither party could have overnight stays with the children during such times as either one co-habited with an adult to whom he or she was not married.
She entered into an agreement where she knew she could not have overnight stays if she cohabitated with someone she was not married to. She then tries to exploit a "civil union law", which is not marriage, no matter how much the lesbians want it to be. She does not want to hold up her end of the contract she signed with her ex-husband.
I totally agree here. Marriage, through historical customs and common law, is way different than contract law, which governs things such as "civil unions".
Concise legal analysis.
Too bad so many "experts" are not capable of the same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.