Georgia To Be Sued Over Blocking Same Sex Marriages

Per friend of Peach Pundit, UGA professor and doctoral candidate, and “frequent” contributor to #gapol Anthony Kreis:



  1. South Fulton Guy says:

    Yes why would you want to honor the will of GA Voters? Let’s file a lawsuit costing the AG time and taxpayers money to defend GA law so you can jam your lifestyle and choices down the throats of Georgians like DEMs forced Obamacare upon us…

    • tribeca says:

      Because similar laws and amendments in other states have already been declared unconstitutional?

      Because the will of a majority of Georgia voters doesn’t outweigh the protections afforded to all citizens by the US Constitution?

      Because this is what Lambda Legal does?

      The AG doesn’t have to “waste time and money” defending the case. The AG in Virginia recently made the decision he wouldn’t defend that state’s same-sex marriage ban.

      The “will of GA Voters” passed Jim Crow laws, was it a waste of time or money to challenge those? John Vestal is right, this case will likely be in the midst of litigation when the Supreme Court strikes down all same sex marriage bans.

      • Mike Stucka says:

        Tribeca just beat me to the punch I think on most every point. We’ll have to wait until the lawsuit is filed to see what grounds it’s being fought, but Michigan, Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah and California are among the states that have had federal judges smack state law around.

        I find it interesting how many gay-marriage opponents use phrasing similar to “forced down our throats.” NTTAWWT, but the overuse may suggest a preoccupation.

      • joejohns says:

        Marriage has never been a protection afforded to all by the U.S. Constitution. Marriage has always been an institution; and, by definition, an institution has the capacity to be self-perpetuating. There is nothing self-perpetuating about two men and two women. No matter how normal homosexuals attempt to portray their lifestyles, nature has already determined they two men and two women cannot be self-perpetuating. Two men as a union cannot be self-perpetuating because the essence of one man and of another man cannot combine to produce an offspring of itself. Two women as a union cannot be self-perpetuating because the essence of one woman and of another woman cannot combine to produce an offspring of itself. The only union with the capacity to be self-perpetuating, and thus an institution, is the union of a man and a woman. Therefore, homosexuals have a grievance not against the Georgia constitution, but against nature which is not supportive of the lifestyle that they are attempting to create to make themselves feel as if what they want is normal.

        We have rightly said that marriage should not be denied on the basis of race. Because there is nothing about race that prevents a union between a man and a woman from the capacity of being self-perpetuating. That argument does not extend to homosexuals. For two men and two women can only pretend by window-dressing that such a union is an institution and of the caliber of one man and one woman.

        Therefore, if the argument is now that the U.S. Constitution prohibits marriage from being an institution by definition and that marriage must now simply be a practice of convenience — why stop at two men marriage or two women marriage? Why then shouldn’t a marriage be allowed between one man and 5 women?…or two men and one woman?…or six men and ten women? Because aren’t we then preventing the protections afforded to all citizens by the U.S. Constitution by denying these plural marriage constructions??? I mean the idea is that anybody should be able to marry anybody else that they want…correct? So if marriage is not the institution as we have understood it to be since the beginning of recorded history, why then prevent persons from marrying their property…that is a protection that they should have, correct?

        And I think there are many who would find your comparison of African Americans to homosexuals to be offensive.

        Nevertheless, so-called same-sex marriage will be before the U.S. Supreme Court soon. You are of the opinion that the Supreme Court will summarily strike down all state constitutions that hold to the definition of marriage as it has always been understood — that of a union between one man and one woman. But since marriage, and what it is to marry, has always been a power regulated by the individual states, you may be expecting too much from the Supreme Court.

        • tribeca says:

          You’re dragging up the same arguments which have been soundly defeated in federal courthouses across the country. If marriage is supposed to be self-perpetuating, why do we allow infertile individuals to get married? If marriage is such a bedrock societal institution, why do we allow for divorce? Why do we not criminalize infidelity (archaic, old-timey laws notwithstanding)?

          Your argument re: interracial marriage woefully misinterprets the Court in Loving. They didn’t strike down anti-miscegination statutes because of the ability of interracial couples to procreate. They struck down the law because denying individuals the civil and political benefits of marriage on the basis of skin color were decidedly against the whole notion of “equality.” Have homosexuals suffered to the same extent African-Americans have? No, but they have (and continue to) suffer considerable and systemic discrimination in this country (the Supreme Court has flat out recognized this, btw). Denying same-sex couples the rights and privileges associated with marriage (eligibility for spousal benefits, tax breaks, inheritance and intestate rights, etc. etc. etc.) solely on the basis of their sexual orientation is just as blatantly unconstitutional and ignorant of “equality” as anti-miscegination statutes.

          • Bentle Gen says:

            Homosexuals can get married in all 50 states today.

            But a union based on love (I thought that was what it was all about?) isn’t enough for homosexuals since we now must endow folks with psychological and social disorders with benefits – and all the drippings of a protected class.

            They want to be “recognized” by state and federal law for the purposes of state and federal benefits. Seriously?

            What about two elderly sisters who never married, who have lived in the same house their entire life, and whose lives are daily intertwined? Sure, they love one another. They’re sisters for Christ’s sake. So why can’t these two ladies enjoy state and federal benefits, tax breaks, social security transfers, health plan deductions, and inheritance/estate tax exclusions? Because they aren’t “married?” Give me a break.

            If we as a society want to kid ourselves and say that marriage isn’t about the continuation of the human existence and about children being raised by a mother and a father, then let’s go ahead and change millennia of an institution because Adam likes Steve’s rear end. Great, grand, wonderful. That’s a great policy. Can we please stop the attack on the traditional family – the very cornerstone of a stable society?

            If we no longer limit “marriage” to between one man and one woman, then everything else – everything – is discriminatory. I’m going to start screaming “polgyaphobes” during L-G-B-T events. After all, limiting “marriage” to just two people is simply outrageous, especially when these folks love one another and only want the same “rights” as you and me.

            Tribeca laments the “considerable and systemic discrimination” homosexuals have suffered in this country. Christ! Polygamy is outlawed – how do you think they feel you rabid polygaphobe!

            On a different note, I think American white males suffer considerable and systemic discrimination, too. Can we file some lawsuits to deal with that?

        • NoTeabagging says:

          Sorry joejohns, when my parents die, if in death do they part, their marriage is over as is the legal union. it has no more legal bearing on my life or any offspring in the family line.

          There is no requirement that a marriage must create offspring to be legally binding and thus fulfill the “self-perpetuating” clause of your definition.

          Marriage is a commitment between two persons, above all other reasons or legal definitions. People of all persuasions are free to make these personal commitments whether or not they are legally recognized or consummated in legal documentation defined as ‘marriage’.

          Afterthought. Divorce also tends to shorten perpetuating a legal union. I suppose Divorce is an Institution too.

        • Doctor Strangelove says:

          I love it when nonlawyers try to talk to lawyers like they understand law.

          Fun fact: the Constitution isn’t that easy to understand, or else there wouldn’t be umpteen classes on the subject available to law students.

          Thanks for playing.

        • John Konop says:


          Do think this law forces everyone to marry gay people? If anyone is forced to marry anyone I am with you….and your concept that this would create a loophole for guys marrying more than one wife… this a new math concept?

          Story problem for math:

          If you marry someone from the same sex it will multiple the amount of people you marry at the same time by what?

          X Plus X Equals X to what factor?

          Will this be on the SAT if law passes?

        • South Fulton Guy says:

          That is not a valid moral equivalence “the tactic usually to criticize any denial that a moral hierarchy can be assessed” taylor.

          As a Black conservative man who believes in the rule or law, states rights and the constitution I am real tired of hearing defenses that this is like Jim Crow or George Wallace. REALLY Peach Pundit posters playing the RACE card… REALLY??

          At this rate GA is likely headed for a backslide of Biblical Proportions and with the compromise of some Georgia may become a blue state starting with Jason Carter as the next GA Governor because of some of RINO apologists coming out of the closet on this post:


  2. John Vestal says:

    Fairly likely this will be one of many cases still progressing thru the courts when all are made moot in about 14 months, imo. If at least one lower court ruling (Texas/5th Circuit?) is overturned, it’s almost certain the SCOTUS will take this issue up in the new term which starts in October.

  3. Harry says:

    Not saying the USA should follow international trends, but if the SC holds in favor of homosexual marriage they are in contravention with 90% of the rest of the world. The only countries that approve homosexual marriage are in Western Europe (dead culture) and a handful in Latin America (emulating gringos).

      • Harry says:

        Nope, but we need not become a dead culture. Homosexuals have been on the scene forever, and there’s no place for hate, but we also don’t need to pretend they can be married and have the same rights and obligations as married people.

  4. Mrs. Adam Kornstein says:

    totally expected comment thread here.

    I will just interject that “marriage” has always been a contract, even in the bible. We’ve been “redefining” marriage ever since then based on current societal views and acceptance. Maybe 2004 doesn’t seem that long ago, however in the “evolution” of folks acceptance of LBGT rights and same sex marriage, it’s seems like the dark ages.

    • saltycracker says:

      Now we’re talkin’…..let’s get evolving…..this needs to be contract law, inclusive of protection of minors, between individuals and the government needs to let society/church define whatever they want “marriage” to be and butt out (grandmothering in what is on the books).

  5. Ticked says:

    I saw these two sweetie pies on the news this morning . They think because they have adopted two kids that Georgia should abandon its morals and let them get married.
    I would let them marry when they are capable of conception. If it was meant to be it would.
    So pathetic.

  6. South Fulton Guy says:

    To those who lamely attempted to rip me on my state’s rights position on Georgia being sued Over Blocking Same Sex Marriages, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in an affirmative action case Tuesday will very likely have an impact on a Georgia same-sex marriage lawsuit filed here the same day. The high court upheld a constitutional amendment passed in Michigan that bans the use of preferential treatment in college admissions based on race or ethnicity. The court’s opinion, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, gave great deference to the rights of voters to decide constitutional issues at the ballot box and let the people [at the ballot box] say AMEN..

      • Harry says:

        Those cases are not comparable to homosexual “marriage”. Any two humans who can reproduce should never be denied government acquiescence in the marriage contract. Homosexuality – even if in some cases due a degree of empathy – is nonetheless deviant behavior from the natural norm standpoint.

Comments are closed.