Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2006 > June > 26 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USThe gavel bangs on judicial elections
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
All four Georgia Supreme Court justices up for re-election, a majority of the high-court bench, filed their campaign qualifying papers on Monday.
J. Michael Wiggins, the former Bush Administration lawyer, will decide which one he’ll run against sometime this week — possibly by Wednesday, said his campaign chairman, attorney Frank B. Strickland.
Perhaps, Wiggins is waiting until he watches today’s 10 a.m. high-court arguments over the constitutional ban on gay marriage, which can be seen live, at this locale.
The four incumbents on the November ballot: Carol Hunstein, a 14-year veteran of the bench; George H. Carley, who has served since 1979; Hugh P. Thompson, a 12-year veteran; and Harold D. Melton, who was appointed to the bench last year by Gov. Sonny Perdue.
Melton, nearly all our political contacts agree, will get a pass because of his sponsor. The best evidence is last month’s leaked memo from George Israel, the president of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, to other chamber members.
It included ratings on three justices — Thompson, Hunstein and Carley — compiled by the Institute for Legal Reform, an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that has guided millions of dollars toward judicial elections in other states.
From what we’ve heard, Thompson and Hunstein are the most likely target for Wiggins.
Qualifying ends at noon Friday.
Until then, those two justices — or at least their seconds — will be making every effort to make themselves look as impregnable as possible. We know more about Thompson’s efforts than Hunstein’s.
Thompson, we’re told, has raised $100,000 and has pledges for $200,000 more. He’s also developed an impressive list of supporters, including Chuck Clay, publisher Otis Brumby, Jimmy Blanchard of Synovus, former attorney general Michael Bowers, and — perhaps most important of all — well-connected Republican attorney Randy Evans.
Hunstein’s best defense may be the co-chairman of her campaign: former governor Zell Miller, who appointed her to the bench in 1992.
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Franklin
June 26, 2006 10:23 PM | Link to this
I don’t give a rat’s * who my neighbor or anybody else marries as it will have no threat to my marriage. Even if my neighbor married a goat it might be awkward at the getting to know you neighborly dinner in Young Harris but I could handle it. This is a free country and if churches have a problem so be it as I’m Catholic and understand for religious reasons but it is none of the State’s business on what union to recognize or not recognize. DIVORCE is the greatest threat to marriage you non-Catholics—and you know it!
By Debbie
June 27, 2006 07:38 AM | Link to this
It IS the state’s business what they recognize as a marriage.
Gay marriage would be detrimental to society and the voters should decide whether or not to allow gay marriage, not the court system.
I for one, am against gay marriage.
By MW
June 27, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this
I really could not care less if gays marry or not as it is in no way a threat to my marriage or anyone else’s. If religious institutions believe gay marriage is wrong, that is their right but that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about the rights and privileges afforded by the government to its citizens under the laws of marriage. How anyone could be in support of such discrimination is beyond me. Last I checked, gay people pay their taxes and abide by the same laws straight people do so why shouldn’t they be entitled to the same marital benefits we are? I agree with the other posting that the biggest threat to marriage is divorce, not gay marriage. If the preservation of marriage is the highest priority, I would propose banning divorce or at least make it MUCH harder for people to get them. That won’t work, of course, because that would mean those who actually want the divorces wouldn’t be able to get them. The hypocricy here is almost numbing.
By Debbie
June 27, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this
It is up to the voters to decide what is marriage and those that support or oppose gay marriage have a right to fight for whichever position they believe in. I don’t believe in behavior based protection against discrimination. Religion, race, and sex is mentioned in the Constitution but sexual preference is not.
It is not discrimination. No one has a right to marry. It is up to the states to decide that issue.
By MW
June 27, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this
Just because voters state their opinion at the polls doesn’t mean it’s not discrimination. Had a consitutional amendment been placed on the ballot back in the 60’s to ban desegregation, it would have passed but that wouldn’t have made it right. The same goes for interracial marriage in the 70’s. Discrimination on any level is just plain wrong. Period. I find it intriguing that people who say society will be harmed by gay marriage or their marriages will be damaged in some way cannot cite specific examples to support their position. When pressed, they always fail to name even one example that’ll hold water. If your religious beliefs prevent you from supporting gay marriage, that’s fine but again, that’s not what we’re talking about here. These are 2 very separate issues.
By Tony
June 27, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this
Debbie,
Let me play devil’s advocate with you. Don’t let the mention of devil scare you either. You say gay marriage would be detrimental to society. Let’s look at straight marriage. How many marriages end up in divorce? Half. How many broken homes are there? How many children are split between parents? How many children have to bounce back and forth between parents? How many marriages contain one partner engaging in adultery? ‘Open’ relationships? How many times have many remarried?
My point? ‘Straight’ couples aren’t exactly doing justice for the concept of marriage either. Many sociologists and family psychologists say that marriage in its current form is far from the concept it was even 10 years ago. So to say anything else would destroy marriage is a stretch considering us ‘straight’ people have done quite a job on marriage already. But we’d rather keep our messed up concept of marriage to ourselves right?
By GC
June 27, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this
With due respect, the issue is about more than discrimination. It is about justifiable discrimination. Marriage is an institution that is the bedrock of our society. It is a term that describes a union between a man and a woman. Its meaning should never be expanded.
Those seeking to legalize relationships outside of the parameters of marriage probably will realize more progress by embracing another term. There are somethings society has a duty to preserve.
The current arguments for “gay marriage” need significant reframing because they lack the substance necessary to make them compelling to the conscious,hearts, and minds of the majority.
By MW
June 27, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
I agree, GC, that using the term “marriage” is unfortunate for gay people but unfortunately there has been the blending of church and state for so many years that the religious term “marriage” has been allowed to be equated with the civil meaning. I could be wrong but I don’t think gay people really care what you call it. It’s the rights that they’re interested in. You state that marriage is the bedrock of society implying that gay marriage would undermine it. I’ll ask again, in what way? No one seems to be able to answer that for me so I would encourage you to give it a whack. From what I’ve seen and heard, it’s those rights of marriage that change when different terminology is used and that’s not right. Also with due respect GC, I have never heard the term “justifiable discrimination” before. That’s a new one on me. Never in my life have I heard those terms used together. It begs the question of what else in your opinion is justifiable? I guess when you’re the one doing the justifying, it’s an easy statement to throw around however if you’re on the receiving end of that justification, it seems extremely harsh and narrow minded. As I type this I can think of countless “rules” of society that could be broken on grounds it was “justifiable” so where does it stop? I guess my high schooler could say he cheated on his exams because had he not done so, he wouldn’t have gotten into the college of his choice so that makes it justifiable. I also guess a less than perfect marriage makes adultery justifiable too. The list goes on and on but that’s a whole other topic.
By Franklin
June 27, 2006 07:01 PM | Link to this
MW has REALLY got it together. Poor Debbie is struggling as best she can which seems constantly. And as the previous post pointed out “justifiable discrimination”???? That is the strangest concept I have ever heard of. Does this person mean discriminate against crime? Well your sexual preference given you by the Almighty is not a crime.
By thadeus
June 27, 2006 11:46 PM | Link to this
Debbie does not struggle only here, folks, but that’s a different story. Our resident Ralph Reed apologist will hate on us til the cows come home until Reed wins the primary. Then, mark my words, the tauntings will become less sharp as he tries to appeal to the center. Deb, good luck with that, Darlin. And good luck even getting past Casey—not that he’s any better than Reed for us—but he’s running a smart campaign, and anybody that can throw Ralphie under the train, while he won’t get my vote, definately gets my laugh.
By realconservative
June 28, 2006 12:03 AM | Link to this
Debbie, I’m a long time lurker—and I’m fairly convinced that you believe government should and can do anything so long as it doesn’t interfere with what you want.
But don’t stop posting: rhetoric like yours will doom both the big gov’t republicans and the democrats in the end.
By Franklin
June 28, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this
Debbie—size 5 and married——
Have you read the junior high school classic by George Orwell 1984? I know surely you have and wow how you desire that vision.
By Howard
June 28, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
Debbie is not alone in her beliefs on gay marriage. It is you losers that support gay marriage that are in the minority.
Gays are not entitled to class protection under the Constitution.
By Franklin
June 28, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
So I guess it was a minority of “losers” in the South that opposed segregation.
The guy who thinks gays are not entitled to class protection under the Constitution would have said probably along with George Wallace in 1963 “Segregation, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow”.
Just look at what 4 Commandment Rep. Lynn Westmoreland is trying to do to the Voting Rights Act.
By Bob Morgan
July 1, 2006 08:20 PM | Link to this
I most likely will not sway even one opinion, but it is better to light one candle than curse the darkness. What hapened to the “bedrock” of Christian thinking? Compasion, understanding, and most fundimental of all “Tolerance”. I am not gay and a single 70 year old, my generation was marked by the Nazi credo of anti everything but Nazi thoughts. We are rapidly going down that path once again, I fear. In the America of my fathers, people were FREE to do most anything that did nor greatly impact someone else. The “odd balls” made America, lets keep our hands out of others private morals, our noses out of others freedoms. Have a measure of kindness for others and it will enrich your soul! Bob