Same-sex/union const. amdt. post-Nov. 2. -- Ear plugs and not soap requested of gay bashers after amdt. is ruled unconstitutional.

A 09-25-04 post entitled "Judge Russell does not mess around. Effort to halt referendum falters -- Nov. 2 referendum and judicial activism, Post II," while indicating that I would vote "no" on the gay-bashing constitutional amendment, explained in layman's language -- to the extent this is possible for an attorney -- why I felt certain Judge Russell would let the election go forward.

"The judicial power will not be exerted . . . to stay the course of legislation while it is in process of enactment," the Georgia Supreme Court had written in a 1920 case, and this case was determinative with Judge Russell and the Georgia Supreme Court that this week affirmed Judge Russell's decision.

But as explained in the 09-05-04 post, the Nov. 2 election is only the first step. Also as explained in the 09-05-04 post, if the gay-bashing amendment is defeated on Nov. 2, there will be nothing else to take to the Georgia Supreme Court, and basically, if you understand this as explained in my 09-05-04 post, you understand why Judge Russell and the Georgia Supreme Court decided this case correctly.

But as we know, the amendment will pass, and then the case will find itself back in court, and hopefully before Judge Russell and on up to the Supreme Court again.

The outcome. The constitutional amendment as passed -- duly ratified and proclaimed and all that stuff -- will be declared unconstitutional under the Georgia constitution. You can take it to the bank.

Now this go around, Judge Russell and the Justices on the Georgia Supreme Court were not what, you got it, activist judges.

I am a triathlete. I am going to encourage my fellow jurists to get in a little activity between now and the upcoming court challenge -- a little jogging, cycling, swimming, anything. While being active might not make them an activist judge, it will come closer to being accurate than that used by the GOP.

You recall Bill Shipp's take on this. "As nearly as we can tell, a 'judicially activist' jurist is one who rules against your wishes."

In the 09-05-04 post I recounted how Sen. Mike Crotts (R-Conyers) -- who introduced Senate Resolution 595 which authorized the gay marriage referendum during the 2004 session of the General Assembly -- said after he heard Judge Russell asking the parties questions.

"Here's a judge being fair, not trying to be an activist judge who is trying to circumvent the voice of the people," Crotts said.

As I said in my 09-04-04 post:

"Spare us Senator, spare us. You need to wash out your mouth with soap.

"Had Judge Russell not brought up the 1920 Supreme Court case, and ultimately ruled against SR 595, not only would you have called her an 'activist judge,' but this would have been the nicest thing you and Jim Wooten and other gay bashers would have had to say about her."

After the initial and final rulings on the constitutionality of the amendment are announed, it sure would be nice if the gay bashers would supply the activist judges some ear plugs. Nice, decent folks should not have to be subject to having to hear what they are going to be called.

And especially when, just as they did in allowing the amendment to be voted on, they are just doing their job as they swore they would do when they became judges and justices.

God Bless America!!