Georgia gay marriage ban amendment, Take Two

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-04-02 02:56am

Since it didn't pass a vote in the legislature, they're taking it to the people, because it's perfectly alright to be a bigot if EVERYBODY is.

Gay marriage ban amendment passes
Georgia voters to decide issue in November

Conservatives celebrated and subdued gay rights supporters vowed to continue fighting Wednesday night after the Georgia Legislature gave final approval to a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

The proposal, one of the most divisive issues to confront Georgia lawmakers in years, now moves to the state's voters, who must approve it in a Nov. 2 referendum before it can become part of the state constitution.

After two hours of intense debate, the Democratic-controlled state House of Representatives narrowly endorsed the referendum, which passed the Republican-run Senate early in the legislative session.

"I feel very gratified that the House gave the people the right to have a voice," said Sadie Fields, executive director of the Christian Coalition of Georgia, a key supporter of the proposed ban. "They did the right thing. It's the fair thing to do."

But gay rights advocates said the passage of Senate Resolution 595 just clears the way to make "discrimination" part of the Georgia Constitution. Several opponents of the proposed ban hugged one another and wiped away tears outside the House chamber as they vowed to continue their battle at the ballot box.

"I think we fought the good fight," said state Rep. Karla Drenner (D-Avondale Estates), the state's only openly gay lawmaker. "The conservatives won, but gay people are not going away."

The House voted 122-52 for the gay marriage ban as the giant tote boards over the chamber lit up at 6:54 p.m. The final tally was just two votes more than the two-thirds majority needed in the 180-member House for passage of a proposed constitutional amendment.

The same proposal failed by just three votes in its first House appearance in late February, a decision that buoyed the hopes of gay rights supporters and sent conservatives scrambling. But four members of the 39-member House Legislative Black Caucus who did not vote Feb. 26 supported the ban Wednesday, ensuring its passage.

Gay rights advocates will begin an immediate campaign to defeat the proposal in November, said Allen Thornell, director of Georgia Equality, the state's largest gay rights group, which like the Christian Coalition had lobbied daily on the legislation. Metro Atlanta is believed to have the third-largest number of gay residents in the nation, and many of them made their first trip to the Capitol this year to lobby against the ban.

"Today was a step backwards," said state Rep. Nan Orrock (D-Atlanta), the Democratic whip in the House and a staunch opponent of the amendment. "But we'll be back. We will continue to fight this battle. The forces of tolerance and inclusion and fair-mindedness ultimately are the forces that will move this state forward. We will not take this setback standing still."

Wednesday's vote followed three months of controversy that roiled the Capitol and strained traditional political alliances within the Democratic Party. The Georgia debate took place amid a growing national conversation about gay marriage. More than two dozen state legislatures are considering some form of gay marriage ban this year. Earlier this week, Massachusetts approved a same-sex marriage ban but, unlike Georgia, permitted gay civil unions.

Here, both sides ran well-polished lobbying blitzes that jammed lawmakers' telephone lines, fax machines and e-mail in-boxes. On March 1, several thousand people on both sides of the issue took part in a raucous Capitol rally — one of the largest in years — that attracted people from across the state.

Gay rights advocates contend that the ban would dangerously broaden existing Georgia law, which already prohibits same-sex marriage. The constitutional amendment not only would bar same-sex marriage in Georgia but would prohibit the state from recognizing any same-sex "union" approved in another state.

Opponents of the amendment argued that its broad language could affect domestic partnership benefits offered by some Georgia companies. Supporters said it would have no impact on the policies of private companies.

Some opponents also accused Republicans of using the proposed ban as a ploy to increase conservative voter turnout in November. Conservatives countered that they are just trying to ward off attacks on their core value system and to preserve marriage as a sacred bond that exists exclusively between a man and a woman. They argued that a constitutional ban is necessary because "activist judges" have overturned statutory gay marriage bans in other states.

"We cannot let judges in Boston, or officials in San Francisco, define marriage for the people of Georgia," declared Rep. Bill Hembree (R-Douglasville). Hembree, a leading House spokesman for the amendment, said the ban will build a "wall of defense around the institution of marriage" and is needed to "protect the family structure that has existed for 6,000 years."

That argument apparently helped win over Black Caucus members Randal Mangham (D-Decatur), Sharon Beasley-Teague (D-Red Oak), Carl Von Epps (D-LaGrange) and LaNett Stanley-Turner (D-Atlanta). Those legislators did not vote Feb. 26 but supported the ban in Wednesday's vote.

"We shouldn't have to explain to 6-, 7- and 8-year-olds why men are kissing each other," said Mangham, whose vote was critical in Wednesday's passage. "I don't like having to explain that to my kids. I will continue to support their [homosexuals'] right to do what they do, but they will not have the sanctity of marriage."

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/ ... ymain.html

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-04-02 02:59am

"We shouldn't have to explain to 6-, 7- and 8-year-olds why men are kissing each other," said Mangham, whose vote was critical in Wednesday's passage. "I don't like having to explain that to my kids. I will continue to support their [homosexuals'] right to do what they do, but they will not have the sanctity of marriage."

Let me point out all the things wrong with this.

1) "We shouldn't have to explain to 6-, 7- and 8-year-olds why men are kissing each other,"

She's arguing that because she's an incompetent parent, gays should be denied equal rights.

2) "I will continue to support their [homosexuals'] right to do what they do, but they will not have the sanctity of marriage."

The good old hypocrite standpoint, combined with a fundamentalist plea.

3) The statement taken as a whole. Gay men will still kiss, regardless of whether or not they can get married. So it's not relevent at all as an arguement against same-sex marriage.

Johonebesus · Post by **Johonebesus** » 2004-04-02 06:02am

Mayabird wrote:Since it didn't pass a vote in the legislature, they're taking it to the people, because it's perfectly alright to be a bigot if EVERYBODY is.

Not quite, this is the same proposal that barely failed before. They just brought it up a second time and got enough votes. All constitutional amendments have to go to referendum. In fact, even seemingly trivial acts are often offered as amendments because the legislators are too cowardly to enact a law that might be unpopular. Every year we are asked, "should the Constitutions be amended so that" elderly homeowners get a break on property taxes or a certain type of dock should be outlawed.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-04-02 07:55am

well the ban passed in massachusetts, so what makes you think it won't pass in georgia?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-04-02 08:07am

But in Mass. it was overruled. If it gets passed in Georgia it will take another fucking war to overturn it.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-04-02 08:33am

HemlockGrey wrote:But in Mass. it was overruled. If it gets passed in Georgia it will take another fucking war to overturn it.

no it didn't. the legislature passed a constitutional ammendment and romney said he will sign it. all it needs now is voter approval in 2006. the ammendment would ban gay marriage and "legalize" "civil unions".

linky

if it can get enough votes in the general election remains to be seen, but support for a gay marriage ban in Mass has been steadily gaining strength since the issue was brought to the forefront of the public consciouness last year. it is well over 50% now an still trending upward. scaaaaary shit.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2004-04-02 08:50am

I got a question...

How does the whole "Good Faith" clause in the constitution get overridden when gay marriage licenses are issued in other states but that state doesn't have to honor them? I thought they had to take it from other states? I think DOMA stated it, but why haven't they struck that down yet?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-04-02 09:03am

No law, no principle, no appeal to human sympathy for your fellow man can overwhelm the righteous rural American's steadfast belief that he has the right to discriminate against those who aren't following God's law.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-04-02 09:39am

DPDarkPrimus wrote:

"We shouldn't have to explain to 6-, 7- and 8-year-olds why men are kissing each other," said Mangham, whose vote was critical in Wednesday's passage. "I don't like having to explain that to my kids. I will continue to support their [homosexuals'] right to do what they do, but they will not have the sanctity of marriage."

Let me point out all the things wrong with this.

1) "We shouldn't have to explain to 6-, 7- and 8-year-olds why men are kissing each other,"

She's arguing that because she's an incompetent parent, gays should be denied equal rights.

2) "I will continue to support their [homosexuals'] right to do what they do, but they will not have the sanctity of marriage."

The good old hypocrite standpoint, combined with a fundamentalist plea.

3) The statement taken as a whole. Gay men will still kiss, regardless of whether or not they can get married. So it's not relevent at all as an arguement against same-sex marriage.

judging from the sound of her responses, she mustn't like having to explain to her kids why daddy & mommy kiss each other either.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-04-02 10:35am

Simple answer for the "I shouldn't have to explain to my kids ..." argument: WHY NOT?

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2004-04-02 12:53pm

Idiot fundie response: "because I don't wanna. Whaaaaaaaaaa!"

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-04-02 01:44pm

RogueIce wrote:I got a question...

How does the whole "Good Faith" clause in the constitution get overridden when gay marriage licenses are issued in other states but that state doesn't have to honor them? I thought they had to take it from other states? I think DOMA stated it, but why haven't they struck that down yet?

Congress has the right to define what is covered by the full faith and credit clause. The DOMA explicitly freed states from any obligation to honor same sex marriages, so Georgia is in the clear. If the DOMA were repealed but this amendment passed, then you could go to court and argue Georgia's state constitution is in violation of the Federal one.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-04-02 03:57pm

It will pass. It's a near certainty.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-04-02 03:59pm

Of course it will pass. It's Georgia. It was astounding that it didn't pass the first time.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-02 04:01pm

Darth Wong wrote:Of course it will pass. It's Georgia. It was astounding that it didn't pass the first time.

*insert YEEEEEEEHAW and sound of random gunfire*

There, now it's Georgia

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-04-02 04:12pm

Darth Wong wrote:Of course it will pass. It's Georgia. It was astounding that it didn't pass the first time.

There was a bare minimum of people in the Georgia senate with the guts/balls to vote against it. But then they apparently realized that with the educational system down the shitter along with the budget and hell, practically everything else, they needed to make a big distraction to keep everyone from noticing. And since they can be oppressive and suck up to their god at the same, all the better for them.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-04-02 04:20pm

Fucking rural conservatives are ruining America.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-02 06:02pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Fucking rural conservatives are ruining America.

Like the semi nightly crackhouse shootouts in Philadelphia arent?

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-04-02 06:48pm

Do you ever get the feeling that we should invade the South again?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-02 06:49pm

Andrew J. wrote:Do you ever get the feeling that we should invade the South again?

Yeah, that'd be smart, seeing as the majority of large military bases are
in the south

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-04-02 07:00pm

Like the semi nightly crackhouse shootouts in Philadelphia arent

At the least the urban fuckers only shoot at people within fifty feet. These rural assholes are trying to ruin the entire nation.

Johonebesus · Post by **Johonebesus** » 2004-04-02 07:07pm

Andrew J. wrote:Do you ever get the feeling that we should invade the South again?

How will that work? The legislatures in both Georgia and Massachusetts voted to amend their constitutions to ban gay marriage. It doesn't look to me that you Yankees are any better.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-04-02 07:12pm

Johonebesus wrote:
Andrew J. wrote:Do you ever get the feeling that we should invade the South again?
How will that work? The legislatures in both Georgia and Massachusetts voted to amend their constitutions to ban gay marriage. It doesn't look to me that you Yankees are any better.

Massachusetts' Supreme Court has blocked such. Georgia's remains silent.

Of course, I'm daring to say something against the Good Ol' Southern Folk. The bitching will be legendary.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-04-02 07:16pm

This is all largely irrelevent; the deciding factor in the gay marriage debate is going to be decided in the US Supreme Court, much like abortion was. And I have a certain amount of faith that they will come to the appropriate conclusion, although the noted homophobia of Justice Scalia makes me hesitate on celebrating too quickly.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-04-02 10:53pm

Johonebesus wrote:How will that work? The legislatures in both Georgia and Massachusetts voted to amend their constitutions to ban gay marriage. It doesn't look to me that you Yankees are any better.

Hm? The last I heard the last attempt to amend the consititution that way in Massachussets failed.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Georgia gay marriage ban amendment, Take Two

Georgia gay marriage ban amendment, Take Two

Re: Georgia gay marriage ban amendment, Take Two

Re: Georgia gay marriage ban amendment, Take Two

Re: Georgia gay marriage ban amendment, Take Two