![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 4 of 4. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by gardenergirl on May 17, 2006, at 9:25:51
Yesterday she ruled that Georgia's ban on gay marriage, passed in 2004, is unconstitutional. :)
She found that the amendment asked voters to decide on multiple issues, which violates GA's "single-subject" rule. Opponents of the amendment believed that some voters may be opposed to single-sex marriages, but might support the idea of civil unions. The 2004 amendment did not separate the two issues.
Of course, the amendment passed overwhelmingly in 2004 (74%), so it may be just a matter of time before a new amendment that does pass constitutional muster is put before the voters . Still, I am happy about Judge Russell's ruling.
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on May 17, 2006, at 12:11:44
In reply to Three cheers for Georgia Judge Constance Russell, posted by gardenergirl on May 17, 2006, at 9:25:51
Posted by zazenduck on May 19, 2006, at 13:36:41
In reply to Three cheers for Georgia Judge Constance Russell, posted by gardenergirl on May 17, 2006, at 9:25:51
Kinky Friedman is in favor of Gay marriage.
Should single sex marriage be limited to homosexuals? Traditionally marriages can be annulled if they are not consummated. Should this apply to single sex marriages or should heterosexuals be allowed single sex marriage without any intention to have a sexual relationship?
> Yesterday she ruled that Georgia's ban on gay marriage, passed in 2004, is unconstitutional. :)
>
> She found that the amendment asked voters to decide on multiple issues, which violates GA's "single-subject" rule. Opponents of the amendment believed that some voters may be opposed to single-sex marriages, but might support the idea of civil unions. The 2004 amendment did not separate the two issues.
>
> Of course, the amendment passed overwhelmingly in 2004 (74%), so it may be just a matter of time before a new amendment that does pass constitutional muster is put before the voters . Still, I am happy about Judge Russell's ruling.
>
> gg
Posted by Racer on June 5, 2006, at 22:46:17
In reply to Single sex marriage for heterosexuals?, posted by zazenduck on May 19, 2006, at 13:36:41
I just got involved in another thread about this very subject. Surprisingly, not one participant was in favor it banning gay marriage -- and all were strongly opposed to addressing the issue at all until we get through some other minor things. Like Iraq. Or leaving all those children behind. Or, you know, things like that.
My own opinion, which I offer up for no good reason at all, is this:
Marriage is a religious ceremony, when you come right down to it. Binding civil union should be available to ALL, should they want it. Most of Europe recognizes BCU now, where it's considered a kind of Marriage Light. Why not offer that to EVERYONE in this country, and catch up with the rest of the world?
I'd draw the line at names: if neither party is willing to change his/her name, then it should be a BCU. But I think I feel that way because it was so difficult for me to adjust to changing my name. I didn't just change surnames when I was married -- I dropped my first name, which I'd never used, made my former middle name my first name, and my maiden name became my middle name. Even though I'd never used it, it was remarkably hard to lose my first name.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.