Wednesday, May 5, 2004

Voters, not judges, will get to choose

By Sen. Mike Crotts

Recently the Georgia General Assembly approved Senate Resolution 595, which I proposed, to allow the people of Georgia to vote for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages.

I sponsored this legislation with one intention: To safeguard the will of the people of Georgia against liberal activist judges who seek to create their own definition of marriage.

Our faith-based conservative values have been under attack for more than 30 years. What was once unthinkable is now commonplace.

As we speak, the Supreme Court is considering a lower court ruling that “under God” in the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional. Another court is hearing a petition to rule the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional.

A handful of activist judges are seeking to use the courts to make new law and rewrite social policy to suit their own personal perspectives rather then interpreting the laws that the peoples’ representatives have enacted.

Some have said that the constitutional ban on same-sex marriages is not needed because Georgia law already defines that the state only recognizes marriages existing between a man and a woman.

I voted for that law in 1996. Yet in the eight years since, I have seen courts in other states rule that such laws are unconstitutional.

While the Massachusetts legislature debated, the courts made law. In California, Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, with the help of the courts, redefined marriage in California, regardless of voter preference. Even in South Dakota, a conservative state, movements are underway to redefine marriage by judicial fiat.

To protect the sanctity of marriage as we have defined it for over 200 years in America from liberal judges, the states need constitutional amendments to define marriage. That is the purpose of the ballot measure.

Some remain silent in this fight, believing that such a constitutional amendment is not politically correct. Wrong.

A constitutional amendment against same sex-marriages is entirely in line with what President George W. Bush and Senator Bill Frist are attempting to do on the federal level with their proposed federal amendment to ban same sex marriages.

Waffling on the issues, like John Kerry and some quavering Georgians have done, will not solve the problem. Waiting for a federal amendment could take years, by which time, the state courts would have legalized same-sex marriage in Georgia.

Another argument critics of Senate Resolution 595 attempt to justify is that the measure would eliminate benefits, such as health insurance, that companies and municipal governments are currently providing to partners of homosexual and lesbian employees.

Nothing in the wording of the proposed legislation even deals with the subject, nor should it. In fact the language in the proposed amendment is identical with the current statute.

The purpose of the proposed constitutional amendment is to define and protect marriage, not to dictate ethics to businesses.

I am a business owner myself and I believe with all my heart that government should not interfere with business. This amendment does not broach this subject in any way and, when passed by the voters, will not infringe on such benefits.

Indeed, federal law protects such programs that companies have for partners of homosexuals and lesbians. Bottom line: This proposed amendment deals with a moral issue, not a business issue.

Georgians will have the final say on Senate Bill 595 in November. The very intention of the amendment is to give the people of Georgia a chance to define marriage, not liberal activist judges.

This constitutional amendment is precise and concise; it defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman and ensures that courts will not be able to rewrite marriage.

Anyone who tells you differently has never read the amendment or is deliberately trying to mislead you.

[Mike Crotts is a state senator representing Georgia’s 17th District, which includes Fayette County, and is a Republican candidate for Georgia’s 8th Congressional District. Additional information may be obtained at www.mikecrotts.com.]

What do you think of this story?
Click here to send a message to the editor.