And the dominoes just keep falling

The latest news from the South on gay marriage:

The state Supreme Court reinstated Georgia’s constitutional ban on gay marriage Thursday, just hours after New York’s highest court upheld that state’s gay-marriage ban.

The Georgia Supreme Court, reversing a lower court judge’s ruling, decided unanimously that the ban did not violate the state’s single- subject rule for ballot measures. Superior Court Judge Constance Russell of Fulton County had ruled that it did.

Seventy-six percent of Georgia voters approved the ban when it was on the ballot in 2004.

Let a reasoned popular debate (as opposed to an unreasonable judicial fiat) begin.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://stevehouchin.blogspot.com Steve

    I disagree with the rulings of the Georgia and New York Courts, however, I’ve not read the laws on which the decisions were based.

    I don’t have a problem with gay marriage or civil unions. I think that banning an act available to one demographic for another is wrong, and don’t see how a ban on gay marriage really follows the civil rights acts…

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    I have a problem with polygamy, if this means getting rid of gay marriage, I’ll accept that.

    The question is, are gay marriage proponents willing to accept polygamy as the price of gay marriage. I’m not.

  • Zhombre

    I not only don’t support gay marriage but firmly believe most celebrity marriages should be banned.

  • Kevin

    I’ll second banning most celebrity marriages!

    Homosexuals are not being discriminated against–they are as free to marry anyone (of the opposite sex) as any other person.

    Finally, you’ll probably note that I do not use the word “gay” but rather homosexual as homosexual is a non-inflammatory, non-derogatory scientific term that actually describes what we are discussing. I refuse to buy into the PC euphemism of “gay”–if they have so much “pride” in their lifestyle, why not call it what it is? I’ve often questioned why people buy into the terms “gay” and “straight” since both terms were framed by the homosexual movement? I say heterosexuals should be able to pick their own PC term and I would like to suggest “normal” (i.e. conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical.) I still remember the line in the Flintstones theme song–we’ll have a gay old time; how times have changed.

  • Trish Olsen

    I find it rather interesting that gay people (while most already HAVE legal civil union rights, if they want them) put so much emphasis on that “little piece of paper” called a marriage certificate — while more & more similar-thinking liberal types put less & LESS importance on that SAME piece of paper — i.e couples who’ve lived together for YEARS but enthusiastically profess, ” We dont need a piece of paper…”

  • mamapajamas

    My degree work was in anthropology/prehistoric civilizations, so I tend to have a long view on most social issues.

    This is what I know from my own research:

    ALL civilizations… and I mean civilizations, not just any old tribe of people… have had marriage, and that marriage consisted of legally binding men and women. However many partners might have been allowed, the home contained at least one father and at least one mother for the children (except in cases of early death, which were exceptions and not the general rule). The apparent purpose was to protect children.

    “Protect children” has a wide range of meanings from physical to social, and one of those meanings we’ve come to discover very recently with the gross failures of the Welfare State. It has been found that children need both sexes for parents, that each child needs BOTH a male and female role model. The result of having so many children in our society growing up with only one parent… only one side of the “role model” binary being presented to them… has been disaster. There are exceptions… there are always exceptions… but in general that is true.

    So the true purpose of “marriage” has always been to protect children. We have a tendency to find out that when human “rules”, even ones that seem arbitrary or outdated, have turned up so universally through civilizations going halfway back to Adam, there is usually a good reason that is not always apparent. We’re finding out the reason for two parents… one male and one female… right now.

    Most of the things that are being fought for in homosexual relationships can already be reached via ordinary legal means. Inheritance? Make your partner the co-owner of your property and “inheritance” never even comes into the picture (in fact, this is a good thing for everyone to do… make your intended heirs co-owners of your property, and inheritance taxes never come into the picture… they already own your property). Visitation rights in hospitals? Name your partner as “next of kin”. They’ll have to take your word for it.

    This is a huge non-issue being blown out of proportion… and something that we need to approach with extreme caution.

    The universality of marriage laws throughout history and pre-history happened for a reason.

  • mamapajamas

    My degree work was in anthropology/prehistoric civilizations, so I tend to have a long view on most social issues.

    This is what I know from my own research:

    ALL civilizations… and I mean civilizations, not just any old tribe of people… have had marriage, and that marriage consisted of legally binding men and women. However many partners might have been allowed, the home contained at least one father and at least one mother for the children (except in cases of early death, which were exceptions and not the general rule). The apparent purpose was to protect children.

    “Protect children” has a wide range of meanings from physical to social, and one of those meanings we’ve come to discover very recently with the gross failures of the Welfare State. It has been found that children need both sexes for parents, that each child needs BOTH a male and female role model. The result of having so many children in our society growing up with only one parent… only one side of the “role model” binary being presented to them… has been disaster. There are exceptions… there are always exceptions… but in general that is true.

    So the true purpose of “marriage” has always been to protect children. We have a tendency to find out that when human “rules”, even ones that seem arbitrary or outdated, have turned up so universally through civilizations going halfway back to Adam, there is usually a good reason that is not always apparent. We’re finding out the reason for two parents… one male and one female… right now.

    Most of the things that are being fought for in homosexual relationships can already be reached via ordinary legal means. Inheritance? Make your partner the co-owner of your property and “inheritance” never even comes into the picture (in fact, this is a good thing for everyone to do… make your intended heirs co-owners of your property, and inheritance taxes never come into the picture… they already own your property). Visitation rights in hospitals? Name your partner as “next of kin” on your admission forms. They’ll have to take your word for it.

    This is a huge non-issue being blown out of proportion… and something that we need to approach with extreme caution.

    The universality of marriage laws throughout history and pre-history happened for a reason.

  • mamapajamas

    Whoops… sorry for the double post :)

  • Trish Olsen

    Just to clarify: I meant STRAIGHT couples who’ve lived together for years (you know, the Hawns & Sarandons of the world.)
    Or maybe I should have used the term HETEROSEXUAL couples, here — because I think Kevin’s post, above, is right on the money. The correct terms are: homosexual & heterosexual, plain & simple. Why sugar-coat it with PCisms? Or, why NOT? I mean, if I am a heterosexual “straight” woman, then wouldn’t my homosexual counterpart be a “crooked” woman? Straight couples and crooked couples — sounds fair enough to me.

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    Homosexuals want social acceptance more than the actual legal rights of unions. The Left gave them a devil’s bargain, and told them that they would get social acceptance if they pushed through homosexual marriage. Don’t trust the devil.