Pro-Family Critics Blast Overturn of Georgia Marriage Amendment

More nonsense from activist judges.

(AgapePress) - Pro-family and conservative leaders are criticizing a state trial court judge's decision to throw out an amendment to the Constitution of Georgia defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Nevertheless, many traditional supporters believe that, despite the court's ruling, traditional marriage in Georgia will ultimately be protected.
Attorneys with the pro-family legal group Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) say Judge Constance Russell, the trial court judge who declared the Georgia's "Amendment One" unconstitutional, misused a technicality known as the "single subject rule" that says amendments may not deal with multiple issues and must address one subject only. However, ADF senior legal counsel Mike Johnson believes the judge's contravention of the will of Georgia's voters, who approved the marriage amendment in November 2004, cannot stand for long.
"Georgia's Amendment One has one purpose: to protect marriage from attack," Johnson asserts. "The 76 percent of voters in Georgia who voted 'yes' to the single subject of protecting marriage from all contemporary threats deserve to have their vote respected and not dismissed by radical judges," he says.
The ADF spokesman points out that a situation similar to this judicial reversal in Georgia happened in another state not long ago, when a district court struck down the Louisiana Defense of Marriage Amendment on the same grounds as were used to strike down the Georgia amendment. In both cases, he notes, the trial judges ruled that the amendments were invalid because they addressed two topics -- marriage and civil unions.
Johnson helped defend Louisiana's marriage amendment from that attack. In the case known as Forum for Equality PAC v. McKeithen, the Louisiana Supreme Court unanimously overturned the state district court judge's decision and reinstated the marriage amendment, and the ADF senior counsel is convinced that a similar scenario will eventually play out in Georgia.
"This ruling will be appealed," the pro-family litigator contends, "and the Georgia Supreme Court will understand, just as Louisiana's high court did, that the sole objective of these amendments is to protect marriage and that the language of the amendment is crucial in achieving that single goal."
The state trial court judge who threw out Georgia's Amendment One may try to claim that civil unions and same-sex "marriage" are different subjects, Johnson adds; "but the people of Georgia," he insists, "know better. They understand that protecting marriage means protecting it from all imitations."

Bauer: State Controversy Proves Federal Amendment Needed
Conservative activist Gary Bauer of the group American Values agrees that Russell's ruling was a seriously flawed piece of jurisprudence. But while the judge's conclusion was based on "a contorted view" of Georgia's single subject law, Bauer observes, the state's political leaders appear to be united in their defense of traditional marriage.
The American Values spokesman notes that even the Democratic Attorney General of Georgia, Thurbert Baker, is calling the trial court judge's ruling "wrongfully decided." Meanwhile, the state's Republican governor, Sonny Perdue, has vowed to appeal the decision. He says he will call a special session of the state legislature to consider putting another marriage amendment on this year's ballot if the Georgia Supreme Court does rule on the issue by August 7.
Judge Russell's action striking down the Georgia marriage amendment is "just one more example," Bauer asserts, "of why we desperately need a federal marriage protection amendment." The United States Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," he contends, "and our public servants in Congress should act now by sending a federal marriage amendment to the states for ratification so the people, not unelected judges, can decide the meaning of marriage in America."
The Senate Judiciary Committee took a meaningful first step today (May 18) toward that end when it voted to approve a constitutional amendment that would outlaw homosexual "marriage." The vote fell along party lines, with ten Republicans voting in favor of protecting traditional marriage and eight Democrats voting against the measure. The approval clears the way for the full Senate to vote on the matter, which is expected the week of June 5.

Alabama Christians Urge Support for State Marriage Amendment
In the meantime, the battle over marriage continues in other areas around the nation. Even now, the Christian Coalition of Alabama is encouraging pro-family voters across that state to turn out in strong numbers next month for a vote on a state marriage amendment.
Senate Bill 109, also known as the Sanctity of Marriage Act, would preserve the definition of traditional marriage as being only between one man and one woman through a constitutional amendment. State law already prohibits same-sex marriage in Alabama, but many conservatives feel the amendment is needed to prevent activist courts from striking state marriage law.
John Giles, president of the Christian Coalition of Alabama, says a big turnout would help the cause tremendously. "When pro-family groups go to lobby the legislature for and against legislation," he notes, "it pretty well lets legislators know who's back home."
By coming out en masse to support biblical marriage, church members can demonstrate to lawmakers just what a "good Christian, conservative audience we have that are part of the voting electorate," Giles points out. With sheer numbers believers can show that they want marriage protected, he says, "and it certainly helps our job in passing good legislation and stopping bad legislation."
The Christian Coalition of Alabama spokesman notes that with courts all across the U.S. issuing conflicting decisions about the definition of marriage, it is important for a state to have its own laws clearly established. When states like Alabama and Mississippi enshrine the definition of traditional marriage in a constitution as being between one man and one woman, those states can more easily refuse to recognize unions from other jurisdictions that do not fit the traditional definition of marriage.
Also, Giles adds, having marriage protected in a state constitution "makes it stronger in the court cases as well." He says Alabama's marriage amendment vote takes place June 6, and pro-family supporters are praying that the proposal will get at least 85 percent of the vote.