Posted on 12/27/2006 10:22:25 AM PST by SmithL
BOSTON -- The state's highest court ruled Wednesday it had no authority to force lawmakers to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but it still criticized them for not acting.
Opponents of same-sex marriage had collected 170,000 signatures to get an amendment on the 2008 ballot that would define marriage in Massachusetts as between a man and a woman, but their effort still needed the support of a quarter of the Legislature.
When lawmakers failed to vote on the question in November, the governor and angry opponents sued.
They asked the court to clarify whether the state's constitution required lawmakers to vote on a proposal that was sent to the legislature by a voter petition drive. The Supreme Judicial Court determined it could not force a vote.
"Beyond resorting to aspirational language that relies on the presumptive good faith of elected representatives, there is no presently articulated judicial remedy for the Legislature's indifference to, or defiance of, its constitutional duties," the court wrote.
The same court had ruled in 2003 that the state constitution guaranteed gays the right to marry.
In the lawsuit, gay marriage opponents, including Gov. Mitt Romney, argued that the people's will was being thwarted and that lawmakers were violating their right to petition for a constitutional amendment.
They argue that it should be left to the people, not the courts, to define something as important to society as marriage. Supporters say the civil rights of a minority shouldn't be put to a popular vote.
"In light of the court's decision, it's going to be very difficult for legislators to violate their oath of office by sidestepping a vote," Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said.
The proposal must be approved in two consecutive legislative sessions to be included on the 2008 statewide ballot.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
So much for the will of the people.
Hahahaha...as if anyone had any doubt.
They only force the legislature to act when it suits their agenda.
My thoughts exactly. Isn't this the same court that told the legislature how they were required to write legislation? Now all of a sudden, they have no authority to tell the legislature what to do?
It's the Commiewealth way
BS! The MA Supreme Court had no problem 3 years ago telling the Legislature that it had six months to change state laws to make it happen. That wasn't forcing lawmakers?
Wrong. It's incredibly easy for the legislators in Massachusetts to do whatever the hell they want, whenever they feel like doing it. Why? Because they have almost no opposition, and even when nominally "opposed" (by some poor Republican stiff without party organization or real financial support), Bay State voters keep returning them to office.
The state legislature has routinely ignored voter-approved referenda and initiatives, and has only been rewarded for it by the voters, who seem to enjoy living in a one-party state governed by tax-fattened solons who put their entire extended families on the state payroll.
Sorry, Massachusetts: don't blame your corrupt state reps for taking you seriously when you return them to office with 80% pluralities year after year. They think you're all idiots and see no reason to change their opinions.
I'm surprised this oligarchy in black robes admits there is a limit to its power!
Oh berother! They had no problem forcing the state to legalize it in the first place! Talk about the fruitcake capital of America. What a disgusting state.
And, while I have no problem with a black governor, I think that many Massachusetts voters just wanted to prove how 'diverse' they are by electing him. But, folks, he's no David Palmer.
Judge Maggie Marshall wasn't even born in this country yet she wants to make the laws and ignore the will of the people. She has accepted awards from gay and lesbian groups yet she failed to recuse herself when this issue came up. She is a disgrace.
HAHAHAHAHA! As if that would ever happen.
The legislature is in violation of the constitution; the governor sues to make them comply; the court weasels out of its responsibility. Talk about the system being broken...this is a complete failure of the Massachusetts government! People should scream about this. Heads should roll. What will happen? Nothing.
"Judge Maggie Marshall wasn't even born in this country yet she wants to make the laws and ignore the will of the people. She has accepted awards from gay and lesbian groups yet she failed to recuse herself when this issue came up. She is a disgrace."
I know. She was a South African (white) liberal activist.
Well, nice to know that the Court acknowledges that it has *some* limitations!
This from the state of
"No taxation without Representaion!"
and of the Boston Tea Party...
The Gaycoats are not only coming,
..they've come...all over
Massachusettes.
Hey Mass Legislature!
You've got jizzum all over your faces!
MA voters could vote the legislators out but most run unopposed and have huge war chests...Last night on WRKO Barbara Anderson was talking with host Jeff Jacoby about Mitt Romney leaving office. It was said 100 GOP candidates were put up in '04, with Romney helping them out
and none of them one. "It's our own fault for not electing
them (opposition candidates)". (It was also said that
the same people who ran THOSE campaigns were put in charge
of Kerry Healey's unsuccessful gov run this yr., if we can
put some of the blame on them...)
oops, none of them WON! (yikes...when I type fast...)
In Massachusetts, the "will of the people" only means anything if the people are on the hard Left. Otherwise, you can pretty much forget it.
Boot those legislators out.
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.