Posted on 11/29/2004 7:54:58 AM PST by areafiftyone
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a dispute over gay marriages, rejecting a challenge to the nation’s only law sanctioning such unions.
Justices had been asked by conservative groups to overturn the year-old decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage. They declined, without comment.
In the past year, at least 3,000 gay Massachusetts couples have wed, although voters may have a chance next year to change the state constitution to permit civil union benefits to same-sex couples, but not the institution of marriage.
Critics of the November 2003 ruling by the highest court in Massachusetts argue that it violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of a republican form of government in each state. They lost at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.
Their attorney, Mathew Staver, said in a Supreme Court filing that the Constitution should “protect the citizens of Massachusetts from their own state supreme court’s usurpation of power.” Federal courts, he said, should defend people’s right “to live in a republican form of government free from tyranny, whether that comes at the barrel of a gun or by the decree of a court.”
Merita Hopkins, a city attorney in Boston, had told justices in court papers that the people who filed the suit have not shown they suffered an injury and could not bring a challenge to the Supreme Court. “Deeply felt interest in the outcome of a case does not constitute an actual injury,” she said.
Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly told justices that voters can overrule the Supreme Court by adopting a constitutional amendment.
The lawsuit was filed by the Florida-based Liberty Counsel on behalf of Robert Largess, the vice president of the Catholic Action League, and 11 state lawmakers.
The conservative law group had persuaded the Supreme Court in October to consider another high profile issue, the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on government property. The court agreed to look at that church-state issue before Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. He is working from home while receiving chemotherapy and radiation and will miss court sessions for the next two weeks.
State legislators will decide whether to put the issue before Massachusetts voters in November 2006. Voters in 11 states approved constitutional amendments banning gay marriage in November elections.
President Bush has promised to make a federal anti-gay marriage amendment a priority of his second term.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court narrowly ruled that gays and lesbians had a right under the state constitution to wed. The nation’s high court had stayed out of the Massachusetts fight on a previous occasion. Last May, justices refused to intervene and block clerks from issuing the first marriage licenses.
Originally published on November 29, 2004
I'm glad they did. We don't need THIS US Supreme court involved in the issue of gay marriage. Eventually they'll be asked to rule on some element of this issue - at a time of our choosing.
Gutless wonders.
sensationalist panic stricken headline alert.
PING
Well it is from the DAILY SNOOZE ya know! ;-)
The Massachusetts court ruled on a state institution based on an interpretation of the state constitution. The Massachusetts marriages don't have any federal rights or recognitions and don't break any federal laws. Traditionally the Supreme Court stays far away from state-based issues like this.
Some DOMA test-case will come up in the future. That's what you need to look out for.
The people of Massachusetts have always said many Hillbilly states allow their citizens to wed their family, well now we see what the people of Massachusetts wed . I havent seen the Hillbilly state have a problem with brain damage , but after seeing the Drunken Senator , the Traitor senator and the Queer Senator, I say I will takle marriage to family to marriage to queers anyday.
Hardly. I recently read a detailed analysis of where we stand in this fight, authored by attorneys and loaded with citations. Without significant change in the current makeup of SCOTUS, it's a virtual certainty that gay marriage will become the SCOTUS-mandated law of the land in all fifty states. The analysis was shared with me confidentially; if I can obtain permission to post it publicly, I will.
MM
The justices are simply acting with restraint and eschewing judicial activism, unlike the Massachusetts judges.
The people of Massachusetts are injured when their state government via the judicial branch removes their right to a republican form of government. When the courts are legislating the people are all harmed, regardless of their view on this particular issue. But it was too much to ask the supreme court to rule that another court usurped its constitutional powers by legislating from the bench. To do so would call into question many of their own decisions. Power is a very enticing thing.
Hello? The federal constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. Article IV section 4.
Restraint? Um, is it not their job to rule on Article IV section 4 of the US Constitution. They didn't show restraint. They didn't want to overturn the legislation because they like it.
Sorry you live in such a messed up state, but the last thing this country needs is a Mass plaintiff asking the US Supreme Court to make your gay marriage the law of the land.
It is better that the current court does NOT rule on homosexual marriage less we have it forced on all 50 states.
SCOTUS Cops-Out on Mass Gay-Coupling
And if you think this means the Supremes will not rule on the marriage issue themselves, imposing it nationwide, then you didn't read the Lawrence decision. They declined because they are pro-gay marriage and are just waiting to impose it on all. The cases are already in the works.
The Supreme Court is simply not about to rule on the broader issue of state court authority over questions of state constitutional rights. Believe me, this is not the first time this type of issue has come up.
It's not in SCOTUS's interests to say that state courts must always defer to state legislatures. They don't want that principle applied back to them.
I just read the post above your reply to me, and I see I explained to you stuff you already understood. My apologies.
This would not have been a ruling on homosexual marriage. It would have been a ruling on the restraints of government, specifically the judicial branch of government. They don't get to do the legislating. That's all this was about.
Nice bit of journalism here.
The actual news is that the SCOTUS won't hear the case, but this rag already jumped to the conclusion that had they heard it, they would have overturned the Massachusetts SCOTUS.
Yeah, but I enjoyed reading your post anyway. You're exactly right.
BINGO!
Don't forget who we're talking about right now. It would not be a stretch of the imagination to see this Court simply decide to rule that homosexual marriage is legal in all 50 states. We know there are already enough Justices on the Court to do just that. Better to keep the issue out of the hands of the 6 black robed tyrants that made sodomy a "right".
My Headline:
SCOTUS DECLINES TO ACCEPT GAY MARRIAGE POLICY:
Freepers Old Professer & The Ghost of FReepers Past Vow To Fight Decision
This first sentence is misleading; there is no "law" or act that sanctions homosexual or Lesbian marriage. There is an state supreme court "opinion" that the state constitution (by not expressly forbidding gay unions) cannot deny homosexuals and Lesbians the opportunity to marry. It infuriates me when "journalists" invest court opinions with the same authority and legitimacy as (properly construed) legislative acts.
Let the states decide, but it will ultimately become a federal issue.
I say let the American people decide.
Its rather amusing that you cite the constitution, yet completely ignore the 11th amendment, which is suppose to prohibit states from being sued in federal court.
Which is why the POTUS must get the original amendment passed, forbidding courts to rule where the legislature and the people clearly have the power.
Shouldn't have to be that way, however, Judges are overstepping the separation of powers, put in place as a system of checks and balances, carefully crafted to prevent this kind of tyranny
Yes indeed. What it will allow is some AIDs infested person to marry a young stud while on his deathbed and allow the young stud to obtain federal benefits for the rest of his life.
Just don't bring it here. Michiganders spoke on it.
You're right. The people of Massachusetts had no say in this. Maggie Marshall (champion of the gay lesbian alliance)and her supreme court crew dictated this. The politicians on Beacon Hill don't have the backbone to bring the real issues to a vote. We can thank Maggie for bringing this to a head. It actually helped W get elected.
Just wait until the issue of gay divorce court starts rearing it's head. Gay marriage, the joke that it is, will eventually end up there. These sexually deviant lust based marriages don't last long. I'm sure they will be demanding special government support for their "uniqueness" before long as well, further bankrupting programs designed for the purpose of familly. The government trough can only feed so many.
Sorry Jr, I doubt she was in it for the social security. Take your homo defending comments elsewhere.
I had the same thoughts when I read this article. Most states reject gay marriages so this is a step in the right direction.
You are totally misreading my comment and my position.
If voters can overrule the judicial branch by voting for a state constitutional amendment, has the republican form of government been taken away?
What in the US constitution gives the SCOTUS the power to overturn the Massachusetts case, in your opinion?
Well, perhaps you can enlighten the audience as to how, in your word, the desires of a older rich oil tycoon's to marry a big breasted blond Texas woman can be used as an analogy for an AIDS infested homosexual marrying some young gay stud so the stud can have his social security benefits?
Widows and widowers don't get Social Security retirement benefits until they are of retirement age themselves.
Widows and widowers of persons receiving a pension won't get survivor's benefits unless the retired person opted for survivor's benefits, which meant that he/she received reduced payments during his/her lifetime.
Oh, also you can't qualify for your spouse's retirement benefits unless 1) you were married for at least ten years and 2) you never remarried.
And if the younger person made more money during hisur lifetime, his own benefits would be higher anyway.
You can't get BOTH benefits, only your own retirement benefit OR survivor benefit.
Thanks for clearing that up. I'm not sure you're correct on the required 10 years of marriage though.
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10084.html#2
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.