Preface

After reading Lynn Hogue’s answer in Friday’s Metro Section of The Atlanta Journal & Constitution on his opinion of the so-called “Marriage Amendment,” I’d like see what his opinion would be on the following (potential) constitutional amendment in terms of surviving constitutional review.

Similar to the marriage amendment that will be on the ballot this November, my amendment is also a 2-part amendment, but only “Section A” would actually be on the ballot for the voters to review at the time of their vote and make their choice on the whole amendment:

Section A: Persons of faith have the right to obtain a "Person of Faith" car tag.

Section B (which will not be on the ballot, but will be part of the Amendment): Anyone who has purchased a “Person of Faith" license tag will not be allowed to vote in Georgia.

Now, with only Section A on the ballot in November, who would vote against the ballot question? What would Lynn Hogue say to this?

Introduction

In case you’re one of those people who has not heard of the controversy with one of the Georgia constitutional amendment questions that will be on the ballot this November, allow me to explain.

There is a proposed amendment to the Georgia Constitution that, on the ballot, will read as follows:

1. To define marriage as the union of man and woman (Senate Resolution No. 595)

(Vote for one)

Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman?

YES or NO

However, the actual language for the amendment (i.e., the specific language that will actually be added to the Constitution) reads as follows:

(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.

I do not care if you personally agree with both of these paragraphs and would vote on both the same way. That’s not the point of this article. My input into this issue is to also not get into a discussion about homosexuality vs. heterosexuality.

In our real-life case coming this November, the people will not be reading all that they are voting for at the time they are voting, and that is where I take issue with the matter in a big way.

Background on Senate Resolution 595

Senate Resolution 595 was introduced into the State Senate on January 26, 2004. Its lead sponsor was Mike Crotts and its co-sponsors were Don Cheeks, John Bulloch, Bill Stephens, Robert Lamutt, and Mitch Seabaugh.

In the eight attempted amendments from the floor of the senate, not one ever tried to amend what would actually be on the ballot. Why, you ask? Because I believe it has a lot to do with the fact that both the Democrats and the Republicans like the fact that the Georgia Constitution’s Article X, Section I, Paragraph II, as interpreted by the Georgia Supreme Court, allows them to hide the truth of ANY amendment from the voters.

The aforementioned Article and Paragraph sets out the requirements of how the constitution can be amended in Georgia and what the requirements are to publish the proposed amendment prior to the actual appearance on the ballot (don’t go to sleep here…because one day a ballot question may be a threat to your very liberty).

The most recent constitutional reference I am using is the one titled “as amended through November 1998 General Election” from the UGA School of Law Web page. Rather than reprint this as one big huge run-on paragraph, I will just cover the most relevant parts:

1. A summary of such proposal shall be prepared by the Attorney General, the Legislative Counsel, and the Secretary of State and shall be published in the official organ of each county and, if deemed advisable by the "Constitutional Amendments Publication Board," in not more than 20 other newspapers in the state designated by such board which meet the qualifications for being selected as the official organ of a county. Said board shall be composed of the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

2. Such summary shall be published once each week for three consecutive weeks immediately preceding the day of the general election at which such proposal is to be submitted. The language to be used in submitting a proposed amendment or a new Constitution shall be in such words as the General Assembly may provide in the resolution or, in the absence thereof, in such language as the Governor may prescribe.

3. A copy of the entire proposed amendment or of a new Constitution shall be filed in the office of the judge of the probate court of each county and shall be available for public inspection; and the summary of the proposal shall so indicate.

This is the section of the law that makes our lawmakers, from both parties, wet their pants with glee. See, the lawmakers have prescribed exactly how the ballot question will read on the ballot, and the only constitutional requirement is that the summary of the amendment must be published in each county's legal newspaper (and no more than 20 other newspapers as designated by the Constitutional Amendments Publication Board) three weeks before the election date. The only other place the entire text is required to be posted is at the office of each county's probate judge. There is no legal requirement that the entire text of the proposed amendment be presented on the ballot. Thus, the legislative glee.

Again, why not put the intended amendment in its entire text on the ballot? Why didn’t these so-called “Republicans” (who claim that they are honest and moral) feel the need to break from the past (i.e., the way the Democrats used to conduct business in this state) and merely be honest and upfront with what they want you to vote on? The reason follows.

The Communists Come To Georgia

I must confess that I was not a genius during my school days when it came to political science, but I have done enough reading outside the classroom to understand the important aspects of the world’s different political and economic systems. Therefore, to those of you who will, no doubt, assail me on my use of the terminology used by the communists of the Soviet Union to make my points, I will refer you to Senator Zell Miller’s comments to Chris Matthews on the night of his speech at the Republican National Convention: “It’s a metafer, Chris. I was using a metafer. Haven’t you ever heard of a metafer?” (Note: “metafer” was exactly how Miller pronounced “metaphor” so, who am I to change it?)

The politburo was the U.S.S.R.’s controlling authority of their government. They were the elite members of the Communist Party and their decisions dictated what the down-line government entities implemented and communicated to the common folk. They could also be relied upon to be pathological liars.

As I view what is happening in our state government, as well as some aspects of our federal government, I perceive a “creep” of the Soviet mentality into our government. The creep, as of yet, has not infected people to the point of using physical force to achieve their goals. However, the passage of the Patriot Act could certainly (if you bother to read it rather than just listen to what your elected representatives tell you it says) provide the framework for that physical force to be applied on your liberties if a government entity proceeded to take the right steps in the right order to do so. Patriot Act II, if passed, will allow for that force to be applied even more easily with less steps needed.

This creep of communism cannot be easily categorized by the political parties as they currently exist. Having fought and worked for the past 14 years to accomplish the stated goals of the Republican Party, I am now disheartened to realize that some Republicans, once they get elected, do not always adhere to those wonderful sounding principles we were told we were fighting to achieve.

There are individuals, regardless of party membership, who have a thirst to apply this communist mentality, regardless of how “moral” and “liberty-minded” they claim to be. No one, whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, a Libertarian, a Green Party member…no one has immunity from the communist mentality of seeking control over someone else’s life, whether it is by claim of religious edicts or economic edicts.

(See PART II for the continuation)