A Stitch in Haste

Gays have won a very minor skirmish in the marriage wars:

A judge on Tuesday struck down Georgia's ban on same-sex marriage, saying a measure overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2004 violated a rule that limits ballot questions to a single subject.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell said the state's voters must first decide whether same-sex relationships should have any legal status before they can be asked whether to ban same-sex marriages.

"People who believe marriages between men and women should have a unique and privileged place in our society may also believe that same-sex relationships should have some place -- although not marriage," she wrote.

I say "very minor" because the ruling does not mandate gay marriage, nor does it say that no gay marriage ban could ever be upheld. It merely reaffirms the common and wholely reasonable "single question rule" that most states have for voter initiatives.

And of course, Georgia's statutory same-sex marriage ban remains on the books. Moreover, given the demographics of that state, one should not expect much to change there for quite a while.

But here's what I consider noteworthy about this embarrassing if not crippling defeat for the anti-gay factions: If it is so vitally important that bigotry and second-class citizenship be constitutionalized; if the threat from the Others Who Are Ruining America™ is so great; if so very much is at stake...

...then can't you take the time to get it right?

Georgia is not alone in this. There is great concern -- even among opponents of gay marriage -- that bigot amendments in Virginia, Nebraska and Wisconsin also pose not substantive but procedural defects that render them vague or moot, if not unconstitutional. Colorado bigots, meanwhile, were in a such a hurried frenzy to jump on the bandwagon that they actually introduced conflicting proposals for this November's ballot.

This somehow reflects reasoned, consistent support for gay marriage bans?

If I were an anti-gay bigot, I'd probably be less concerned about gays at this point than I would be about the bumbling dolts who have appointed themselves as my representatives and who keep screwing it up so badly. If you're going to speak for the bigots, then at least run your bigotry through a spell-checker first.

Not that, in the grand scheme of things, any of it matters all that much. They are all on the wrong side of history, and their grandchildren will apologize for their actions.

---

Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue has announced that the state will seek an urgent review of the decision. "Urgent" not because there is any window of opportunity for Georgia gays to marry -- the state's bigot statute is still in full force even if the bigot amendment has been struck down. No, "urgent" because it's an election year, including for the Republican governor himself. Go figure.

(Cross-posted at Spectrum Bloggers.)

The Georgia Supreme Court has granted an expedited review of a trial court finding that the state's bigot amendment violates the common and uncontroversial "one question rule" --

Gov. Sonny Perdue called for a quick review by the Georgia Supreme Court and said if the high court failed to rule by Aug. 7 he would call a special session of the Legislature to get another gay marriage ban measure on the November ballot.

Um, why?

Let's review: The trial court decision did not find any right to same-sex marriage — Georgia is not now "the next Massachusetts." Quite the contrary: Georgia's bigot statute (as opposed to its bigot amendment) is still very much on the books, and no defender of bigotry "traditional values" in Georgia need fear the uppity gays any time soon.

So why the rush?

Other than, of course, the fact that there is an election in November, including for Governor Perdue himself. Go figure.

Whatever happened to the warning that hasty decisions make for bad law?

But of course it's never really about good or bad laws, is it? It's about good or bad politics. And in Georgia, bigotry is always good politics.

---

Speaking of "the next Massachusetts," it might well be New York. The state's highest court is hearing oral arguments today over several same-sex marriage lawsuits. Gay rights advocates litigating the case, Hernandez v. Robles, are cautiously optimistic. Details here; my prior posts on the litigation in this chain.