Georgia judge will not block vote on marriage amendment

In a victory for opponents of same-sex marriage, a Fulton County, Ga., judge has decided not to block a vote on a proposed state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages. Superior court judge Constance Russell ruled Wednesday the court does not have the authority to intervene before the legislative process is finished. Until the amendment has been voted on, it is the equivalent of a bill that has not yet made it through the legislature, the judge said. "The courts may not insert themselves into the legislative process prior to the enactment of laws any more than legislators may intervene in a jury's verdict or a judge's ruling in a specific case," Russell wrote. Opponents of the marriage amendment said they will appeal to the state supreme court. The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, and the Atlanta law firm of Alston and Bird filed the lawsuit September 16 seeking to stop the referendum, claiming the amendment would violate the state constitution's "single subject" rule by addressing other issues, such as civil unions and the jurisdiction of Georgia courts. They also claimed that the question voters will see on the ballot is misleading because it asks only if the state should recognize as marriage the "union of man and woman." Judge Russell heard arguments from both sides last Friday, with the attorney general's office representing the state. At the conclusion of that hearing, she hinted she would be unwilling to stop the referendum based on an 84-year-old court decision. Russell cited the 1920 Georgia supreme court case of Gaskins v. Dorsey, which stemmed from a lawsuit in which several south Georgians tried to stop a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to create a new county in their area, Lanier. The high court unanimously decided that the referendum should proceed, ruling that the legislative process was not complete until voters cast their ballots. Russell based her decision Wednesday largely on that case. The judge did not comment on the legal merits of the ACLU and Lambda Legal's case. Johnny Stephenson, an Alston and Bird lawyer who argued the case before Russell, said he expected to file an appeal promptly. "We understand and respect the judge's order," Stephenson said. "Now we believe it is appropriate for review by the state supreme court." Sadie Fields, chairwoman of the Georgia Christian Coalition, which lobbied for the ban on same-sex marriage, praised the judge's ruling. "I commend Judge Russell on her abiding by the rule of law and giving the legislature the respect that they deserve in representing the people of Georgia," Fields said. "Giving the citizens of Georgia the right to vote on this incredibly important decision for our state was the right thing to do." But state representative Karla Drenner, Georgia's only openly gay legislator and the campaign chairwoman of Georgians Against Discrimination, said she is still optimistic. "I'm hopeful that the voters will step in based on the merits of the case and say that our constitution should not be used to limit the rights of any minority," she said. The proposed constitutional amendment would declare that Georgia recognizes the union of only a man and a woman as marriage. That is already state law, but advocates who pushed for the measure argued the standard should be given the enhanced protection of a constitutional amendment to put it beyond the reach of liberal judges. Similar arguments were raised in legislatures across the country this year in the aftermath of a state court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. As a result, Georgia is one of as many as 11 states due to vote on a gay-marriage ban on Election Day. Louisiana and Missouri approved bans earlier this year by heavy majorities, and four other states have already enacted similar amendments.