[ClintonBeGone]

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.

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.

[Mogollon]

Gutless wonders.

[the invisib1e hand]

sensationalist panic stricken headline alert.

[conservativecorner]

Another reason I'm grateful Bush won re-election. Several strict constitutionalists should straighted out the court.

[sgtbono2002]

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.

[Unam Sanctam]

The justices are simply acting with restraint and eschewing judicial activism, unlike the Massachusetts judges.

[COEXERJ145]

Most likely the reason they didn't hear the case is because they're waiting to see the outcome of the attempt to amend the Massachusetts Constitution. If the amendment is approved, the issue becomes moot and the Supreme Court doesn't have to deal with the issue.

It is better that the current court does NOT rule on homosexual marriage less we have it forced on all 50 states.

[Old Professer]

My headline:

SCOTUS Cops-Out on Mass Gay-Coupling

[Luis Gonzalez]

SUPREME COURT WON'T ANNUL GAY-MARRIAGE OKAY IN MASSACHUSETTS!

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.

[pawdoggie]

The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a dispute over gay marriages, rejecting a challenge to the nation’s only law sanctioning such unions.

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.

[Dan from Michigan]

It should be a state issue. Other states shouldn't have to recognize it however. If Taxachusetts wants it, that's their business.

Just don't bring it here. Michiganders spoke on it.

[TheGeezer]

This is a states' sovereignty issue. What we need is a federal constitutional amendment preventing states from being forced to recognize homosexual marriages from other states. That is the important issue.