Rep. Tom Bordeaux Predicted Gay Marriage Amendment’s Reversal

See this morning’s Political Insider for the scoop

Everyone with any sense tried to tell the authors of the Marriage Amendment that it was flawed, and would be overturned, but they told us that we were crazy.  Did the Republicans intend for it to be reversed so they could use it again?  Seems like the evidence is pretty convincing. 


  1. bird says:

    The NRA is a joke. The battle is almost over regarding handguns. It looks like handguns are around to stay.

    The only issue the NRA has left is automatic weapons. ‘We want automatic weapons in every home in America!’

    I love shooting (shotguns), but I will never be a member of the NRA.

  2. jacewalden says:

    “It looks like handguns are around to stay.”

    –You say that like it’s a bad thing.


    get real. the NRA is one of the largest and most powerful lobbying groups in the nation. it’s because of nra lobbying that so many states are offering right to carry permits, and allowing people the lawful use of handguns in self defense.

    If you think the battle for handguns is over, I suggest you check this link:

    if these people had their way, you wouldn’t be able to shoot that shotgun you love so much.

  3. bird says:

    Wow. The impending threat of

    There is no serious our credible attempt to take away sporting guns. In fact, there is no group with any chance of succeeding in outlawing handguns in the States.

  4. jacewalden says:

    IANSA has been successful in promoting their agenda in the U.K. and Australia. It can happen here too.

    The U.N. is set to pass a treaty this summer which will ban the ownership of small arms. It won’t go into effect here until ratified by a gun-hating congress and a gun-hating president…don’t think we haven’t had those before.

    Other than that…are you serious or are you just playing devil’s advocate here?

  5. kspencer says:


    Actually, I pay both the NRA and the ACLU (and the EFF, and a couple of others) portions of my paycheck. Some of the specific issues each takes on make me livid, making me shout loudly about idiots going too far. But in almost every case they’re taking on the issue not because they like it but because it’s in line with their mission – protecting a specific segment of the particular amendment(s) on which they’re focused.

    Lest you think it’s all only about automatic handguns, please recall that shortly after 9/11/2001 there was serious discussion at the congressional level of applying some significantly increased tracking and control on ownership of firearms – all firearms: handguns, rifles, shotguns, everything. It got shut down pretty quick, but I’ll submit that one reason is that the NRA’s reaction was swift and solid.


  6. bird says:

    I’m not playing devil’s advocate. I would like to support the NRA if they weren’t so extreme. I don’t want automatic weapons on the street. It isn’t an issue of principle, but of policy. I think that the police and the average citizen would be less safe if automatic weapons are available. Similarly, I think the police and the average citizen are less safe if rocket launchers, attack helicopters, etc are available.

    I agree that handguns may at some point be a legitimate issue. But I think some of that can work itself out through local legislation. Obviously the needs of an urban city like New York or Detroit are very different than the needs of most of Georgia. However we are a long way from there right now.

    And no one will take away sporting weapons. As an example, John Kerry and France are both in favor of sporting weapons.

  7. UGAMatthew says:

    …Love the NRA, Love handguns, shotguns, etc.
    But what about the allegation that the Rep. purposely flawed the ammendment to monopolize twice on the issue?

  8. jacewalden says:

    UGA Matthew,

    We were having a perfectly good conversation about unrelated stuff when you had to barge in here and bring the topic back to what it was intended to be. How dare you!

    I heard that allegation. It seems like kind of a reach…I mean, no one could possibly know FOR SURE that it would just happen to be struck down before the election…not saying it didn’t happen…just saying it’s kind of a reach.

    Bird, I agree with you on the Fully automatic weapons thing, but I think Big City folks should have the same gun rights as anyone else in the country. England and Australia are not in favor of sporting weapons though…

  9. GTdem says:

    A question for the pro-gun crowd out there.

    Would you support a law that required anyone wanting to purchase any kind of gun(hand gun, sporting gun, assault rifle) to first obtain a license by presenting valid identification (including a witness) at the local courthouse, after which, a permanent record of your information, including the serial # of the guns you own, is kept by the government?

  10. McCain-Rice\'08 says:

    76% of Georgians have spoken, and 1 Judge decided they didnt matter…but as long as that Judge is pushing forward a liberal agenda, any of her decissions will be permisable to Decaturguy.

  11. RiverRat says:

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

    The 2nd amendment isn’t about hunting or sporting guns. It is about a citizen militia – the kind that fought the Revolution. It is either about protecting ourselves from foreign enemies or from our government, and I’d support pro-gun groups if they’d argue the 2nd amendment on its merits.

  12. Headin\' South says:

    The opinion written by Judge Constance Russell is NOT an example of an activist judge. I’ve read the opinion three times. Though there is one small factual conclusion about which reasonable people can disagree, no reasonably informed, logical person who reads the opinion will believe it is an example of the decision of an activist court.

    I’m sure I take issue with Judge Russell on several items, but her opinion is logical and sound and strictly and carefully follows the Georgia Constitution. Before criticizing the Court, read the opinion carefully.

    … And remember, Judge Russell essentially has provided an outline to the legislature as to how to prepare the referendum properly.

  13. jacewalden says:

    The Second Amendment is about individual rights. That opinion has been held up by five different U.S. Attorneys General and disagreed with by none (to my knowledge). The Supreme Court has also never given an opinion which differs from that of it being an individual right.

    GTDem, the answer to your question is “no”. I personally wouldn’t support that on the basis of gun ownership being an individual right. Things in the bill of rights shouldn’t have to meet extra criteria. And legislation should not be passed which restricts any of the bill of rights, including the second amendment.

    On to the Judge…

    I’m not saying she’s one of those kooky “activist” judges. I’m sure her opinion was well thought out, and its to her credit that she gave instructions on how to prepare the referendum.

    I still think it’s a stretch to assume that the Republican Majority knew ahead of time that the referendum would be thrown out just in time for an election year.

  14. Jacewalden:

    You need to check your facts before you post. The opinion you listed was actually upheld by 7 different Attorney Generals:
    Robert Smith (AG under Jefferson)
    Nathan Clifford (AG under Polk)
    Edward Bates (AG under Lincoln)
    Henry Stanbery (AG under Johnson)
    William Moody (AG under T. Roosevelt)
    Tom Clark (AG under Truman)
    John Ashcroft (AG under Bush)

    Russell was extremely activist in this particular case. And to think that the Republicans knew about this when they passed the referendum is insane…just another example of liberals trying to create a conspiracy.

  15. bird says:

    Does anyone have the stats on how many states had anti-gay marriage or anti-civil union referendums (assuming they are two different things) during W.’s re-election. I remember Ohio, Florida, a few others. It was documented that this was part of the ‘Pubs strategy to energize their voters nationwide.

    Same thing here in Ga. No one knows for sure what a court will do, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Governor’s office had a timeline regarding when this would likely be ruled upon, and, if it was thrown out, when that would happen. Based on the course of litigation, it would almost would have to have been anytime after the last election and before this one. So they may not have known for sure it would get thrown out, but I bet they were salivating at the prospect. And I don’t rule out it was flawed on purpose. It is certainly plausible.

  16. GTdem says:

    My reason for asking the question was to juxtapose gun licenses with marriage licenses. We won’t allow the government to keep records of who buys which guns but we seem to not care that the government keeps records of who we marry and in fact we have to ask the government permission to marry.

    Any thoughts on that?

  17. jacewalden says:


    Sorry for the slow response…I’ve been busy at work.

    I think it’s bullshit for the government to try to mess with anything related to the bill of rights. I don’t think the government should be involved in marriage. Yes, I know that doesn’t mesh with the social authoritarian side of the Republican Party, but then again, I’m not the typical Republican.


    Good point…but I still think it’s kind of a stretch.

  18. Bill Simon says:


    If 70% of Georgians decided it was okay to vote in favor of lynching black people (again), and this was turned over by a judge, would you whine about that judge being an “activist” too?

  19. McCain-Rice\'08 says:

    Bill Simon,

    That was a little far fetched, obviously I WOULD NOT support such a decision and Id be in the 30% voting against such a measure.

    But Gay Marrige is not an issue of civil rights, and I took that comment straight from Jesse Jackson’s mouth. This was undoubtably an act of Judicial activism, I assure you Im not the only one who knows that there are several judges on the bench that think they can act like legislators and cahnge the laws they don’t like.

  20. Bill Simon says:

    The point is, McCain-Rice, is that to bleat-out something like “We 70% of the people voted this way and any judge who overturns it must be a crazy activist” makes you look kinda whacked-out.

Comments are closed.