The chicken, the egg, the Georgia Constitution, and Zell Miller

Zell did appoint her…

but, the question certainly seemed easy enough…

Senate Resolution No. 595
Resolution Act No. 841
Ga. L. 2004, p. 1111

( ) YES
( ) NO

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

Back when the duties of judges were first being decided, call it the “first judicial trimester,” Judge John Marshall said:

“The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.”

Judges use the constitution to declare the validity of a law according to the constitution, not according to their own personal viewpoints.
So how does one judge decide the constitutionality of the constitution? Does she use astrological data from the planet between Saturn and Neptune?
It does seem like the chicken and the egg sort of thing. Which came first?
A chicken is not an egg, and an egg not a chicken, but an egg may be empty, or full and for a while residing in a chicken, and a chicken may be embryonic residing inside or outside of a chicken, thus defining “egg.”
It is indeed a timeless piece of whimsical rhetoric.
But the ballot question requires a yes or no answer.
Judge Russell voided the constitution based on a law that was constitutional, that Georgia's single-subject rule limits each amendment put before voters to one topic.

So which came first? The law or the constitution?

Seems like the law Judge Russell used to void the constitution should itself be declared unconstitutional.

This is the rest of the amendment:

This first paragraph of this proposal provides that Georgia shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman and prohibits marriages between persons of the same sex in this state. The second paragraph of this proposal further provides that the state: (1) shall not recognize any union between persons of the same sex as being entitled to the benefits of marriage; (2) 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 where that relationship is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction; and (3) removes from the jurisdiction of Georgia's courts the ability to grant a divorce or separate maintenance or otherwise consider or rule on parties' rights arising from or in connection with such a same sex relationship.

But Justice Marshall also said:
“…if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty… If, then, the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”

This seems to have more than one subject:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Judge Russell can’t impose her own personal morality on the state. She can’t judge the constitution based on a law, she must judge the law based on the constitution. Otherwise she has birthed an ugly, ugly, baby.
Perhaps the next ballot should begin, “Simon says “shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that this…”