Courts Allow Marriage Amendments On Ohio, Georgia Ballots
by Rusty Pugh and Ed Thomas
October 28, 2004
(AgapePress) - As states' marriage amendment supporters fight to give the voters a voice on a pivotal issue, one pro-family advocate says liberal judicial activists seem to be reading the Constitution of the United States as if its begins "We the Judges" instead of "We the People."
Phil Burress of the Ohio-based Citizens for Community Values is pointing out a familiar pattern in American policymaking today. Laws are passed by states or Congress, and ballot initiatives are passed by the majority, yet in many cases it takes only one judge to usurp the entire process by issuing a ruling, often based on his or her own bias.
Ohio is one of several states that will vote November 2 on an amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Louisiana voters already passed a similar measure by 78 percent, but it was thrown out by a judge. Now the president of Citizens for Community Values is concerned that even if Ohio's amendment passes, homosexual activists will simply find a sympathetic judge and get him to throw out the expressed will of the majority.
Burress says Americans need to know that "this is now a country of we the judges, not we the people any longer, and it's going to take a while to fix it." This is why the pro-family activist contends it is crucial that U.S. voters elect a president who will not appoint more liberal judges that are going to help further the radical homosexual agenda.
The citizens' advocate feels there are far too many judicial tyrants on the federal bench already. "Some of these judges have been appointed for life," he points out. "That's what the president does -- appoints federal judges -- and they're there for life." But if enough pro-family voters turn out and vote their values, Burress predicts they will "deal with" many of these judges.
An amendment to ban same-sex marriage is still on Ohio's ballot, despite repeated attempts by homosexual marriage supporters to stop it. The Supreme Court of Ohio threw out the latest challenge, an attempt Burress calls "the last 'Hail Mary' pass by the pro-homosexual activists." That effort to stop Ohioans from voting on the marriage amendment "lost by a 6-1 decision in our favor," he says, "and even then, with this obvious decision, we still had one judge who wanted to invoke his own personal feelings into this."
Nevertheless, the majority on the State Supreme Court voted to allow the amendment proposal to go before the citizens. Since that ruling, the CCV spokesman claims homosexual marriage supporters have been waging a campaign of lies about the amendment in an effort to scare voters into opposing it. Still, Burress contends the majority of the people "will be voting to protect marriage between one man and one woman in Ohio and will be voting 'Yes' on Issue 1."
Georgian Jurisprudence Tilts in Family's Favor
Similar battles are playing out in other parts of the country, as more U.S. states move to enact legislation to protect traditional marriage. The Supreme Court of Georgia has recently decided to allow an amendment banning same-sex marriage to be included on next Tuesday's election day ballot in that state.
Opponents wanted the Georgia marriage amendment proposal disqualified because it contains additional language forbidding the extension of legal benefits for same-sex couples and court recognition of legal proceedings granting those rights and privileges in other states. However, in a majority ruling, the Georgia Supreme Court justices said they could not challenge the constitutionality of a proposal that had not yet been made into law, and that the measure could be challenged in court only after it has been approved by Georgia voters.
In the majority opinion written by Justice George H. Carley, four of the judges stated that "the courts of Georgia cannot encroach upon the legislative process." Two of the justices disagreed with the ruling. One did not like the majority's reasoning but voted with her four colleagues anyway.
Another judge, Justice Leah Ward Sears, issued a dissenting opinion, suggesting that the Georgia marriage amendment ballot measure could subject Georgians to "coercion and fraud." According to an October 26 New York Times article, the State Supreme Court justice wrote for herself and the other dissenting judge that the majority had failed in its duty to protect Georgia's voters.
Other states voting on marriage protection amendments next week, besides Ohio and Georgia, are Arkansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah.
