Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.
Post Office Box 1231 • Manassas, VA 20108 • (202) 216-9430 • Email: info@imapp.org


WWW iMAPP

Support iMAPP

Join the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy mailing list
Email:
Weekly Archives

Blogger!



Wednesday, October 20, 2004

GA. AMENDMENT IN COURT: From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Justices of the Georgia Supreme Court on Tuesday asked pointed questions about the language of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, indicating they might rule on issues beyond jurisdiction in the case.

The justices heard oral arguments for less than an hour in a lawsuit attempting to stop a scheduled Nov. 2 referendum on the question. The jurists did not say when they expected to issue a ruling, but both sides anticipate one before Nov. 2.

...Justice Leah Ward Sears asked Stefan Ritter, a senior assistant attorney general representing the state, to explain a sentence in the amendment that reads: "No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage."

Ritter said "union" is used as a proxy for "marriage."

Opponents of the proposed constitutional amendment argue that "union" can be interpreted to mean same-sex relationships other than marriage.

Justice Robert Benham asked whether a phrase prohibiting the court from considering or ruling on issues with respect to any "such relationship" would apply to contractual arrangements between same-sex partners.

Ritter replied that the term "such relationship" refers to a civil union or marriage but would not cover all contractual arrangements. He said the language is not so broad that it eliminates all rights.

more

Share on Facebook! Tweet This! http://www.wikio.com VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact

Copyright Institute for Marriage and Public Policy