Divorce Attorneys
Sides argued on gay marriage law
|
|
ATLANTA - Georgians opposed to gay marriage but more accepting of civil unions were unable to vote how they felt on a proposed constitutional amendment in 2004, lawyers argued Tuesday before the state Supreme Court. That’s because the ballot question ignored the distinction between those two subjects and simply asked whether marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman, a violation of the state constitution’s “single-subject rule,” claimed John Stephenson Jr., an attorney representing plaintiffs who successfully challenged the gay-marriage ban in Fulton County Superior Court. But Senior Assistant Attorney General Stefan Ritter argued that the ballot language was clear. “Voters knew what they were voting on,” Ritter said. The state’s attorneys argued that each of the amendment’s parts dealt with the issue of marriage and its benefits. “It does not violate the single-subject rule,” Attorney General Thurbert Baker said about the nearly hour-long arguments Tuesday morning. “We’re talking about how we define marriage in the state of Georgia. We’re talking about the benefits of marriage.” Although 76 percent of voters approved the amendment in the November 2004 general election, the ballot question did not make reference to language that Stephenson argued would prohibit lawmakers from ever being able to add legal benefits to unmarried, same-sex couples. “This is a different subject than recognizing marriage in the state as being between a man and a woman,” he said, pointing out that far more voters, as well as President Bush, are open to some type of legal benefits for same-sex couples even if they cannot be considered married. The onus is on the state to prove the amendment dealt with a single issue. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance Russell ruled last month in a lawsuit brought by University of Georgia law professor Chuck O’Kelley and his wife, Judi, and other plaintiffs, that the amendment violated the state constitution’s single-subject rule. After the state requested an expedited appeal of Russell’s ruling, Supreme Court justices agreed to hear arguments quickly, but did not indicate Tuesday when they would issue their ruling. Gov. Sonny Perdue has vowed to convene a special legislative session if the high court does not issue a ruling by Aug. 7 or if the lower court’s ruling is upheld. A special session would allow lawmakers to craft a new ballot question, which would be presented to voters in the Nov. 7 general election. “I wouldn’t be surprised if we get a ruling before the governor’s deadline, but that’s the business of the court,” Stephenson said. Published in the Athens Banner-Herald on 062806 |
Related Articles from Attorney for Divorce
U. Arizona sponsors discussion on both sides of marriage controversy.
Protect Marriage Arizona is a "war of the rings," said the president of the Marriage Law Foundation at a debate on Proposition 107 last night. Jonathan Millet, a third-year University of Arizona law student and president of the Federalist Society, said the debate at the James E. Rogers College of Law was an opportunity to "present the best sides on both sides" to help people make up their minds about the proposition. There has not been much said on the part of those who support Prop....
Marriage Law Roils Vermont Elections
Dr. Dean is playing the classic incumbent's role, pointing to the achievements of his tenure: the best record on child health insurance in the country, moves toward universal health care coverage, hundreds of thousands of acres of open land preserved. But, he says, he has more to do, beginning with healing the rift caused by the civil-union law. Although he said he wanted to reconcile the two sides, he was not conciliatory about civil unions themselves. In the debate, he recalled a moment in college when he suddenly realized he was the only white in a room of African-Americans, and
Sides argued on gay marriage law
Georgians opposed to gay marriage but more accepting of civil unions were unable to vote how they felt on a proposed constitutional amendment in 2004, lawyers argued Tuesday before the state Supreme Court. That's because the ballot question ignored the distinction between those two subjects and simply asked whether marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman, a violation of the state constitution's "single-subject rule," claimed John Stephenson Jr., an attorney representing plaintiffs who successfully challenged the gay-marriage ban in Fulton County Superior Court. But Senior Assistant Attorney General Stefan Ritter argued that the ballot language was clear. "Voters knew
Oregon Judge Set to Decide a Lawsuit on Gay Marriages
After listening to legal arguments on Friday over whether Multnomah County can conduct same-sex weddings, a county circuit judge said he would issue a ruling next week. It will be the first major ruling in the case, but not the last. Both sides want the Oregon Supreme Court to take up the issue quickly. Advertisement The judge, Frank Bearden, said he was "very grateful I'll just be an asterisk in some other decision along the line." Multnomah County, which includes Portland, began issuing marriage licenses on March 3 to gay and lesbian couples. Kelly Clark, a former Republican state legislator who is the lawyer for
Oregon judge to decide gay marriage lawsuit by next week
After listening to legal arguments Friday over whether Multnomah County can conduct same-sex weddings, a county circuit judge said he will issue a ruling next week. Advertisement It will be the first major ruling in the case, but not the last. Both sides want the Oregon Supreme Court to quickly take up the issue. Judge Frank Bearden said he was "very grateful I'll just be an asterisk in some other decision along the line." Multnomah County, which includes Portland, on March 3 began issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Kelly Clark, a former Republican state legislator who is