 |
 |
| The lead sponsor of Georgia’s gay marriage ban accused Fulton County Superior Court Constance Russell of ‘stonewalling’ for taking more than a year to rule on a lawsuit challenging the amendment. (Photo courtesy Fulton County Daily Report) |
|
|
| | |
| |
|
|
| | |
HOME > NEWS > LOCAL
By: ANDREW KEEGAN
COMMENTS |
| 
It’s been some 15 months since Fulton Superior Court Judge Constance Russell heard oral arguments on the validity of a constitutional ban on gay marriage that Georgia voters overwhelmingly approved in 2004, and there is still no indication when a ruling might be issued.
Gay rights attorneys who oppose the same-sex marriage ban are not disturbed by Russell’s extended time to make a decision, but the Republican former state senator who co-sponsored the bill said he believes Russell is "stonewalling."
"I think she is doing both sides an injustice by waiting so long," said Mike Crotts, who was a Republican state senator representing Conyers when he co-sponsored the marriage ban. "The people of Georgia voted and a judge should not be holding off on a decision that won’t let those voices be heard."
Seventy-six percent of Georgia voters supported the gay marriage ban in the Nov. 2, 2004 election.
And while rumors swirl that the upcoming 2006 elections may play a role in when Russell issues her ruling, her post is secure for the next two years.
In Georgia, Superior Court judges are elected in non-partisan races to four-year terms. Russell, a 1996 appointee to the bench by then Gov. Zell Miller, won re-election in 2000 and again in 2004, when she faced no opposition. She comes up for re-election again in 2008.
Georgia judges also have no time limit to rule on the cases before them, according to the Judicial Branch of Georgia. "Once a case has been heard and both parties have rested their case, the court will issue a decision as soon as possible. In most cases, there is no specific time limit for a judge to give a decision," states the official judicial website, www.georgiacourts.org.
A spokesperson for Russell said that there has been no decision issued on Amendment 1 as of May 1. She declined to provide any further details.
The state Attorney General’s Office, which wants Amendment 1 upheld, did not respond to calls for comment.
Charles Bullock, a political science professor at the University of Georgia, said there is no way to know if politics or the upcoming elections are playing a role in Russell’s delayed ruling.
"There’s an old joke that when Jesus Christ comes back, he’ll come back as a judge so he can have real power," Bullock said.
Case at standstill
The lawsuit, which does not question whether gay couples should be allowed to marry, focuses on how the issue was presented to the public. The lawsuit maintains that the state’s gay marriage ban, known as Amendment 1, is invalid because it violated the single-subject rule of the state constitution, which prohibits multiple questions being presented to voters in a single proposition.
Opponents of the amendment contend that in addition to establishing a heterosexual definition of marriage, it also prohibits civil unions and domestic partnerships, even though some voters who oppose gay marriage may support alternative legal recognitions for same-sex couples.
On Jan. 14, 2005, Russell heard oral arguments in the lawsuit brought on behalf of seven plaintiffs by the ACLU of Georgia, Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund and Alston & Bird, an Atlanta law firm.
There have been no additional briefs filed in the case since, according to Jack Senterfitt, an attorney in Lambda’s Atlanta office who is working on the case.
"I’m aware of cases where it has taken quite some time before a ruling is issued," Senterfitt said. "You really can’t read anything into the time it takes a judge to decide."
Senterfitt said he remains confident in the outcome.
"The day we made our arguments I felt very good because of the questions [Russell] asked both us and the assistant attorney general," he said. "I felt she had a good grasp of the issues and feel really good about our chances."
Crotts, who left the state General Assembly for an unsuccessful run for Congress in 2004 and is now seeking re-election to the state Senate, said he has no problem with how people "live their life" and the lawsuit is really about "activist judges."
"If a judge has the ability to silence the voice of the people then what issue is next?" he said. "That is not what the Constitution provides for. I think it’s a shame for both sides that she is drawing this out."
‘Careful’ judge
Todd Young, policy director for the Southeastern Legal Foundation, a conservative legal group, said Russell is doing the right thing in taking ...
| 
