SWGA Politics

Two Out of Three Aint Bad

Yesterday, the GA Supreme Court handed down three decisions that got coverage in the AJC (they could have handed down more that I’m not aware of), and in my opinion got two of them right.

First, the two correct decisions:

1) In Fayette County, Eric and Sandy Mongerson got divorced in 2007. Not a big deal in and of itself, divorce is quite common these days and I’m not discussing the pros and cons of it here. What made this divorce somewhat unusual was that apparently Eric is gay and the Divorce Court ordered that he could not expose his kids to his partners or gay friends. This is blatantly discriminatory and goes directly against the Federal 1st Amendment guarantee of freedom of association. Specifically, Justice Robert Benham, writing for the majority, noted that “In the absence of evidence that exposure to any member of the gay and lesbian community acquainted with Husband will have an adverse effect on the best interests of the children, the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed such a restriction on Husband’s visitation rights.”

In the second decision, the Court deemed that a teacher accused of having sex with a student who is at or above the age of consent in Georgia can present a consent defense. Indeed, in this particular case the student in question had testified at trial that she had initiated the relationship, but the prosecution objected on relevance and the objection was sustained. Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, writing for the majority, says this as her opening paragraph: “This appeal presents a straightforward question of law. The question is whether, in November 2006, consent of the alleged victim was a defense to the crime of sexual assault of a person enrolled in school. We have concluded that it was, as long as the student had reached the legal age of consent. Accordingly, the trial court erred in preventing the defendant from presenting a consent defense at trial, and we reverse the contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals.” In other words, while it is against the law for a teacher to have a sexual relationship with ANY student, if the student was 16 years old or older and consented to the relationship, that defense must be allowed at trial.

So kudos to the Supremes for getting those two right.

On to the one they got wrong:

Columbus is one of several cities nationwide (Atlanta is another) that is suing online travel companies to try to force them to collect taxes. Honestly, this is one that will do nothing but hurt the cities themselves. But the Supreme Court, with Justice Benham writing for the majority, sided with Columbus on this one. Again, these efforts are only going to hurt the local cities, as evidenced by the fact that as a result of this suit being filed, Expedia (the company in question) removed hotel listings for Columbus and instead now only lists Phenix City, AL hotels – directly across the river from Columbus. There is a way to remedy this though: put pressure on the General Assembly to change the excise tax law to specifically allow internet travel companies to do business the way they already do.

One thing is for sure though. I had forgotten how much I genuinely enjoy reading judicial decisions, and this gave me a chance to go back and read a few. So for that alone, if nothing else, thanks AJC!

Those are my opinions on those three, what do you think?