I'm with Speaker-elect Glenn Richardson on this one. -- Plaintiffs in court challenge to Amd't. # 1 suffer dementia if they think suit is best for Ga.
Today Brian Basinger of Morris News Service has an article in Athens Banner-Herald wherein a UGA professor and his attorney-wife explain their involvement as plaintiffs in the gay-marriage ban lawsuit.
My 11-11-04 post titled in part "Is the GOP hoping for Supreme Court defeat?" The answer "yes" as discussed in the series of posts linked in this 11-11-04 post is so obvious that the question asked is no more than a rhetorical question.
The GOP can hardly contain itself at the very prospect of being able to have another referendum on the ballot in Nov. 2006 if amendment # 1 is declared unconstitional because it violated the Georgia constitution's single-subject rule.
Says Speaker-elect Glenn Richardson: "For those who might still harbor some glimmer of dementia that the will of the people of this state may be circumvented by some judicial declaration, let there be no mistake about it on the message which has been delivered by this vote."
The Speaker is referring, of course, to amendment 1 being overwhelmingly passed by 76% of those voting.
UGA Professor Charles O'Kelley and his wife Judi dismissed Richardson's comments as follows:
"Republicans have been very successful in using this as a wedge issue to get their voters to the polls," Charles O'Kelley said. "It's a very divisive tactic, and 'dementia' is not something I would attribute to someone who is trying to do the best they can for the citizens of Georgia."
I don't know what I would call it, but why not dementia if the O'Kelleys and the organizations truly believe what they are doing -- at this particular time -- is best for the citizens of Georgia.
If those bringing the lawsuit think this is best "for the citizens of Georgia," dementia seems like a mild description. They also probably believe in the tooth fairy.
Rather than uniting as we did pre-Nov. 2, such statements make me reconsider my earlier expressed reluctance of agreeing with the following email:
"The persons responsible for filing the lawsuit -- the known and likely 2006 consequences be damned -- really didn't care who won in 2006. Rather they just wanted to be in our faces" (see this 11-11-04 post), with "our" referring to those of us in the non-gay community who fought passage of the amendment.
In an earlier 11-11-04 post I noted that filing the lawsuit -- given Georgia's unique situation involving 2006 -- represents a very shortsighted and selfish act, and that I am disappointed both in the persons who filed this lawsuit, and in the failure of leadership in the gay community that could have had cooler heads prevail.
And in yet an earlier 11-11-04 post I shared how I had spent a good bit of time contacting the organizations that had brought the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the amendment -- including the ACLU, Alston & Bird, Lamdba Legal (a national organization that represents gays and lesbians) -- and that I had also contacted Southern Voice.
I got to know the author of this article Brian Basinger this summer. Brian is a very enthusiastic young reporter with an amazing knowledge of Georgia's fascinating political history. And just an important for analysis, he understand politics.
Although I contacted the organizations and counsel responsible for bringing the court challenge, I haven't contacted any of the individual plaintiffs.
Brian, I know I already owe you for a couple of cups of coffee, but do me another favor if you will and forward this post to the O'Kelley's. Tell them that I don't have horns and really am a person who tries to do what I think is best for the citizens of Georgia.
And also you can pass along that it is never too late to drop a lawsuit, and that if this one were dropped, the courts would love it. It can be brought in 2007 if it even matters then, and then, just as we did in the suit brought before the election this year, we will be big supporters.
My 11-11-04 post titled in part "Is the GOP hoping for Supreme Court defeat?" The answer "yes" as discussed in the series of posts linked in this 11-11-04 post is so obvious that the question asked is no more than a rhetorical question.
The GOP can hardly contain itself at the very prospect of being able to have another referendum on the ballot in Nov. 2006 if amendment # 1 is declared unconstitional because it violated the Georgia constitution's single-subject rule.
Says Speaker-elect Glenn Richardson: "For those who might still harbor some glimmer of dementia that the will of the people of this state may be circumvented by some judicial declaration, let there be no mistake about it on the message which has been delivered by this vote."
The Speaker is referring, of course, to amendment 1 being overwhelmingly passed by 76% of those voting.
UGA Professor Charles O'Kelley and his wife Judi dismissed Richardson's comments as follows:
"Republicans have been very successful in using this as a wedge issue to get their voters to the polls," Charles O'Kelley said. "It's a very divisive tactic, and 'dementia' is not something I would attribute to someone who is trying to do the best they can for the citizens of Georgia."
I don't know what I would call it, but why not dementia if the O'Kelleys and the organizations truly believe what they are doing -- at this particular time -- is best for the citizens of Georgia.
If those bringing the lawsuit think this is best "for the citizens of Georgia," dementia seems like a mild description. They also probably believe in the tooth fairy.
Rather than uniting as we did pre-Nov. 2, such statements make me reconsider my earlier expressed reluctance of agreeing with the following email:
"The persons responsible for filing the lawsuit -- the known and likely 2006 consequences be damned -- really didn't care who won in 2006. Rather they just wanted to be in our faces" (see this 11-11-04 post), with "our" referring to those of us in the non-gay community who fought passage of the amendment.
In an earlier 11-11-04 post I noted that filing the lawsuit -- given Georgia's unique situation involving 2006 -- represents a very shortsighted and selfish act, and that I am disappointed both in the persons who filed this lawsuit, and in the failure of leadership in the gay community that could have had cooler heads prevail.
And in yet an earlier 11-11-04 post I shared how I had spent a good bit of time contacting the organizations that had brought the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the amendment -- including the ACLU, Alston & Bird, Lamdba Legal (a national organization that represents gays and lesbians) -- and that I had also contacted Southern Voice.
I got to know the author of this article Brian Basinger this summer. Brian is a very enthusiastic young reporter with an amazing knowledge of Georgia's fascinating political history. And just an important for analysis, he understand politics.
Although I contacted the organizations and counsel responsible for bringing the court challenge, I haven't contacted any of the individual plaintiffs.
Brian, I know I already owe you for a couple of cups of coffee, but do me another favor if you will and forward this post to the O'Kelley's. Tell them that I don't have horns and really am a person who tries to do what I think is best for the citizens of Georgia.
And also you can pass along that it is never too late to drop a lawsuit, and that if this one were dropped, the courts would love it. It can be brought in 2007 if it even matters then, and then, just as we did in the suit brought before the election this year, we will be big supporters.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 6:45 AM
2 Comments:
I understand where you're coming from on this, and part of me agrees with you that fighting the amendment is only going to help the Republicans.
I'm not sure what the "right" answer to this challenge is, however. How long should gays wait until fighting this amendment? Until Democrats control all branches of GA government again? If that's the case, we might be waiting for a long time.
We're being asked to suck it up and take one for the team, but I'm not sure that gays have ever been fully accepted as part of that "team" in the first place. This amendment was only able to pass because of strong Democratic support in the House. Many Democratic legislators in Georgia were only too happy to play into Republican hands by jumping onto the gay baiting bandwagon. I'm not sure why anyone would expect gay groups and civil liberties organizations to be any more politically enlightened and think beyond their own narrow self-interests now that the amendment has passed.
I am ambivilent about this lawsuit. You've done a good job of arguing your case. I never believed that gay rights groups and the ACLU would back down from this challenge because of political considerations, but I think more people should have had the opportunity to hear your viewpoint on this. Whether they are going to go through with it or not, the people leading this fight should definitely be considering the long-term consequences of any legal battle over the amendment.
Now that I've got that off my chest... I wanted to say, thank you, Sid, for writing so passionately about Georgia politics. Your blog fills an important need, and I try not to miss it. Please keep it up!
Joseph, your comments and the blog truly humble me. One part says makes my day, but the other is as stated -- I am humbled, and thank you Sir for your kind words.
This whole thing is a damn mess. Why in the hell is it political? Why should Sadie Fields have to argue her case in the newspapers? I guarantee she loves he daughter Tess (I believe it is) just as much as I love my three. It is not -- make that it should not -- be a Party issue. And the bad thing about Nov. 2, 2004, is that it is going to make Demo's less willing to be appear tolerant and respectful publicly, which, as you know, is dishonest.
I cannot help but feel that when you get past the rednecks, many Republicans are closet sympathaziers with the right of one to live his and her own life. But heck, what do I know. I have never been able to figure out how some feel that they have a right to tell a man and a woman whether they should be able to abort an unwanted child. The do-gooders that say they should, how many of them do you see signing up as foster parents. And here we have the same issue: why is pro-life and pro-choice political issuess.
I admire Johnny Isakson for not letting Cain and Collins force his hand. And because of my strong feelings that abortion is a woman's choice, I have trouble believing these two can really feel as strongly deep down as they say they do about it being murder. And this is wrong on my part. No doubt they do.
But with gay bashing, I am missing the victim that I can understand with the fetus, whether or not I agree that we even have a victim. But the Republicans have been successful in bringing this very issue into the perception of values.
And I hear you loud and clear about the Demo's rusing to be at the front of the line to say I voted for putting it on the ballot, in a similar manner in which they did the St. Andrews Cross. But when everything is said and done, at this particular time and place, having an amendment no. 1 on the ballot is a plus for the GOP, and as we are fixing to learn this next legislative session, part of the GOP's package is to play to the right and bash the lifestyle of gays.
And the other side of the argument is to say the election were dishonest because it did not disclose the civil union aspect. But Joseph you know as well as I do that with this out, the vote would not change, downward anyway.
One of my running buddies -- a female type -- was asking me how to vote, etc., and was surprised that I felt so strongly about no on no. 1. Did I convince her; I don't know; as you can tell, I am no a fanatic about many things. But had the issue been on yes or no on civil unions, this person would have said, of course, just as the poll that Jim Galloway wrote about.
I went back and re-wrote one of my posts. It had said something about my being disappointed with "the gay community" on the lawsuit. Prior to posting I thought to myself, the gay community had as much to do with that as I did with my local Democratic Representative --erstwhile Democratic I can now say -- voting for the rebel flag and for gay bashing. Thus I revised before posting to specify the persons who brought and the leadership.
But this much is true -- unfortunate -- but true. We must do all that is possible in 2006 to right our ship, and anything that doesn't help, and further in this case without question, hurts that case, is self-infliction of pain and suffering.
Thanks again for your kind words that do me honor, and the day I meet you will be a day of sunshine for me. Sid
(I try to quickly scan my post -- and scan is the word -- this comment; no way).
Post a Comment
<< Home