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 nations 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. Constitutions 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 courts usurpation of power. Federal courts, he said, should defend peoples 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 nations 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.
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.