Nov 29, 2004
Supreme Court Declines to Step Into Massachusetts Gay Marriage Fight
By Gina Holland
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.

The case is Largess v. Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts, 04-420.

---

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

AP-ES-11-29-04 1017EST

This story can be found at: http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB2GIES42E.html

# Go Back To The Story

This should be put in Daily News and Discussion or in the gay rights area of the forum.

YAY!
:D :D :D :D :D

I wonder why the Supreme Court sidestepped it.

Because it really didn't belong there, there was no valid issue for them to rule on. If the proposed amendment, or any of the ones banning same sex marriage, get appealed they would probably decide it based on an equal protection violation. My guess is they're actually looking for a broader constitutional challenge instead of delaying with narrow decisions.

The claim was that the ruling violated the Constitutional guarantee of "a republican form of government in each state", and that's patently ridiculous. SCOTUS could have ruled on the matter, but they would have to rule in favor of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, because frankly the complaint doesn't hold water. The Supremes, 5/9 of them GOP, probably don't want to allow gay marriage, and if they accepted this case they would guarantee gay marriage. In the same way that Roe v. Wade pretty much has guaranteed abortion rights, this would be a landmark case assuring gay rights. That's a road conservatives don't want to travel.

SCOTUS sidestepped it because they wouldn't like the results of accepting it.

This whole issue of gay marriage as well as the issue of abortion are just two things that the neo-cons have learned create the kind of division we have in this country. It used to be drugs and being too "soft on crime". Those are things the neo-cons learned could inflame people's passion and get them focused on things other than the REAL problems our country faces. I don't like abortion. I think there may be times when it is necessary (rape, incest, life of the mother in danger) but it is not at the top of my priority list of "Things to do to fix America". As for gay marriage, it is absolutely no concern of mine. I'm not trying to marry anyone, male or female. Again, it is another issue that really has no effect upon my life. The neo-cons have become masters of manipulation in mis-directing peoples attention away from the most serious problems we face as a society and keeping them fighting among themselves. They keep us fiddling while Rome burns. Just as illusionists misdirect your attention so they can trick you into believing they have special powers, our politicians misdirect our attention so they can trick us into believing they are decent human beings.

That's how I am. I'm pro-choice but that doesn't mean I'm pro-abortion. And I am for same-sex couple marriage but I'm not gay. It's just none of my business as to who someone loves, so why deny them their rights?