A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO SPECIFY WHAT CAN BE RECOGNIZED AS A
“MARRIAGE OR SIMILAR UNION” FOR ANY PURPOSE.
The proposal would amend the state constitution
to provide that “the union of one man and one
woman in marriage shall be the only agreement
recognized as a marriage or similar union for any
purpose.”
Should this proposal be approved?

See, that proposal simply says asks for an up-or-down vote on one piece of language. Hard to find a more unitary way to phrase it than that. On the other hand, the Georgia initiative is susceptible (as the Fulton County Superior Court found) to an adoption of one part but not the other.

Of course, the terse wording of the Michigan prop is subject to interpretation on what constitutes a “similar union.” The ideological greedheads in Georgia wanted to eliminate any such ambiguity, and in so doing, they created a voidable ballot measure. Serves ‘em right.

The first thing a lawyer (or student) should do is read the text of the matter at hand, to wit:

Paragraph I. Recognition of marriage. (a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.

(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties’ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.”

Now, the first part is pretty clear. Two men shall not be issued a marriage license by any Georgia jurisdiction.

But THEN…

They quit talking about marriage and start talking about unions of any type. Does this prohibit contracts? Successorships?

And THEN…

They statutorily attempt on a state basis to overthrow the Comnity Clause of the Constitution. Nullification much?

Now, Fitz, shine up your lawyerly microscope and try to tell me this is a single issue amendment. It is, at best, a poorly crafted piece of crap.

(In fact, whether law professors know anything is a more complicated question — some, like Sam Isaacharoff, Anthony Amsterdam and Barry Sheck, have reputations as practitioners, and others are pure academics. Some of the pure academics know areas of law very well, but some areas only lend themselves to practical experience. If your professors didn’t know anything, that may have more to do with where you went to school.)

But you wouldn’t want that happening, so you handwave the legal issues. I’m going to guess that the judge was a hair more conversant with Georgia constitutional law as well as the facts of the case than you are.

I believe every time a Judge Thwarts the will of the people like this it only helps the pro-marriage side.

Rather classist of you.

And if you seriously think that because the question was on the ballot then, ipso facto, it was fine, you know nothing about the way these things work. And if you think that the “single issue” was the protection of the institution of marriage, well, you must not be a trial lawyer. Because if you were, you’d recognize that, as the judge said, there are many elements to the ultimate question whether banning same-sex marriage “protects the institution of marriage,” and that each element must be determined independently, just like a jury verdict.

First question is whether marriage is in need of protecting. Another, separate question is whether this is the way to do it. See how that works?

So I’ll just add to the chorus of qualified and hopeful “Yays.”

I’m not a professor. (Were did you get that idea?)

Just your average lawyer who keeps abreast of these issues. Here in Michigan the ballot measure was challenged on the same grounds. The appeal is automatic since it’s a constitutional amendment and has the effect of binding law until the State Supreme Court grant review.

You shouldn’t listen to professors anyway, they aren’t down in the pits actually practicing, their up in there ivory towers dealing in “theory”.
(little tip)