I think it’s telling…
I think it’s telling to read some of the reactions to yesterday’s passage of the amendment to ban same-sex marriages in Georgia and get it on the ballot.

“Georgia law prohibits gay marriage. . . . It is irresponsible to amend the constitution on the flimsy assumption that Georgia judges will ignore the law. This is not Massachusetts. This is not California.”


So what, then, has really changed today? What will have changed if the amendment passes in November? The answer is, very little, if anything. I heard people quoted on the radio this morning saying they’re considering leaving Georgia if this passes, but if nothing has changed–if same-sex marriage couldn’t happen yesterday and it can’t happen in November–why the reaction over this amendment? Is it because judicial fiat was the hope still held out by gay advocate groups in Georgia, and that door could be shut? Were they counting on this sort of extra-constitutional activism to get their way, outside of the legislature? I have a feeling that this is the reason they’re fighting so hard.

And Rep. Moraitakis, how many more “this is not”s would you be willing to say, how many more states’ judges would you watch hurdle over the law to legislate from the bench, before you’d be willing to think that it could happen here? The assumption is not flimsy when there is no force other than a constitutional amendment to prevent it.

“This is not about marriage. Let’s be honest. This is about putting something on the ballot. The nation is watching Georgia, and I’m worried about the message we are sending. First, the state flag. Governor [Roy Barnes] was defeated because of it. What kind of message is Georgia sending? Secondly, evolution came. The nation is watching. Now this. Which way is this state moving? Are we going back or are we gonna move forward?”


Define “forward”. Would you advocate really going “forward” by removing the requirement of only 2 people involved in marriage? Isn’t that just as “discriminatory”? How far “forward” do you want to go?

“Ask somebody standing in the unemployment line if two people getting married is going to give them a job in the morning.”


Probably not, but neither is passing law on health insurance bringing them closer to a job. Neither is passing a law against child cruelty, nor one drawing new district lines. This is such a non sequiter that it shouldn’t even have been run with the few reactions reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

In this article, there are more reactions. Rep. Smyre is reported to have also said this:

“Never before have we amended the constitution to take away rights,” he said.

What rights were removed that were there before? Again, what has really changed? The answer to both questions is “nothing”. However, the people of Georgia are being given the opportunity to avoid what has been happening elsewhere by setting the too high (hopefully) for judges to leap over.

And here’s a sad commentary:

The Black Caucus was divided, but a majority opposed the amendment.

“They’re absolutely crazy,” Rep. Douglas Dean (D-Atlanta) said of the four blacks who sided with Republicans and conservative Democrats. “It’s a sad day, and I’m angry as hell.”

Rep. Jo Ann McClinton (D-Atlanta), said caucus members “don’t understand unity is power.

“Without unity, how do we ever get respect? There appears to be people in the caucus who don’t understand how we got here today and don’t understand the importance of civil rights.”

Voting as a block of black legislatures–voting based on race–is more important than voting conscience? Who’s doing the stereotyping these days?

Filed under: Uncategorized

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!