Replies

An amendment to the state constitution settled the issue in Hawaii, where their supreme court had ruled in favor of the gays in Baehr vs. Lewin. The justices stayed their order pending the outcome of the statewide amendment issue, and the case was mooted by the amendment.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court set a tight deadline in their case precisely to forestall this eventuality, showing IMHO proof positive of abusive judicial bias in that they collaborated with the gay NGO's in ensuring that at least some "gay marriage" licenses would issue -- which gay couples promptly took back to their home states (never mind the wording of the SJC's decree, that the licenses should issue only to bona fide Massachusetts residents) so they could sue in federal court for injunctive relief under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV of the Constitution. Which has been Lambda Legal's objective in pursuing these cases ever since Baehr was ~~forum-shopped~~ filed in 1991.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court behaved as partisan henchmen in a matter of great import to the country, with the evident intention that their actions should work to the manifest injury of the People of the United States.

Now that the issue is joined in federal court, the only way to avoid a SCOTUS decision whose outcome is clearly signaled by the language of the Lawrence travesty is to moot the issue at the federal level. And the only way to do that is to amend the Constitution. I don't think a federal statute attempting to rescind the purview of the Supreme Court will get it done: that would be a challenge to their scope, and would very likely be found unconstitutional "by any means necessary" itself.