Posted on 11/30/2004 10:48:21 AM PST by NYer
WASHINGTON, November 29, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The US Supreme Court rejected Monday a bid challenging the Massachusetts law allowing same-sex "marriage." The Court declined the hearing without comment.
In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the state government to rewrite marriage laws to include same-sex couples. Since the decision, approximately 3,000 same-sex Massachusetts couples have 'married'. Robert Largess, Vice President of the Catholic Action League, along with eleven Massachusetts legislators launched the suit. Their initial challenge, heard at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, was lost.
In 2006, it is predicted that the issue will come before voters in a referendum during the next Massachusetts election. Earlier this month, 11 out of 11 states voted overwhelmingly to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman, while President George W. Bush has promised to enact a constitutional amendment on marriage while in office.
"This decision highlights the need for an amendment to the United States Constitution protecting marriage and defining it as the union of one man and one woman," Mathew Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, said in a release. Liberty Counsel represented Largess and the legislators in the suit. "Marriage will be defined by someone. I would rather have it defined by the people of the United States instead of the judiciary."
"This battle is far from over," he concluded. "The Constitution should protect the citizens of Massachusetts from their own state Supreme Court's usurpation of power."
Ping!
The Massachusettes Supreme Court issued a ruling on the Massachusettes Constitution. The Supreme Court was right in not getting involved.
So long as no provisions of the US Constitution are violated, SCOTUS has no power to review purported violations of state constitutions.
Yeah, they rewrote it...
Nor should they. This is a matter for Massachusetts, not the Feds.
"Due process" and "interstate commerce" works for everything else...
Maybe. But that is still no reason for the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved.
I agree - that's how it should work.
Then again, many will argue that the Supreme Court is "inconsistent" to say the least in deciding where there is a violation of the federal Constitution and where there is not. Abortion, the sodomy case, etc.
But the general topic could fill several law treatises, and probably has!
Understood.
Looks like the state is taking care of it though, I hope.
I fear you're right. However, you only need 4 SCOTUS justices to agree to hear a case, so it looks like even the conservative justices didn't want to stretch to hear this one.
Seems to me that the Mass judges overstepped their authority here. Gay marriage would fall into the category of things within the Governor's jurisdiction until the legislature acted ~ This is the old NO SURPRISES doctrine so little observed by judges looking into penumbras!
Eventually we have to take the entire class of people identified as judges out to be flogged.
No travel to Massachussets, here.
It seems the Mass. S.C. DID violate the U.S. Constitution by denying the Citizens of the state a replublican form of government. Judicial activism (legislating from the bench) is a usurpation of legislative powers, which is the hallmark of a republican (representative) form of government and the basis for the rule of law.
Nullification of the legislature is nullification of a republican form of government, which the U.S. Constitution guarantees to each state.
So the argument isn't about marriage, it's about judicial tyranny. The case should be re-submitted on that basis.
What if the MA SJC ruled to uphold polygamy?
I have a hard time with a legal princple that allows lower courts to uphold laws that institutionalize intrinsic evils, the criminalization of which would incur no social evil. For example, I can understand how the legalization of particular vices like prostitution and drug use could be justified inasmuch as criminalization may cause greater harm to society. I don't see how criminalizing an intrinsic evil like homosexual "marriage" harms society.
Don't know. The MA SJC can easily ignore the results of a referendum, can't they? And it's an open question as to whether an amendment to the MA Constitution can be passed that does not include "civil unions," "marriage" in everything but name. I'd say the situation in MA looks bleak.
Fair enough.
Somehow, the "balance" will be tipped in the future. people won't let courts keep redrafting laws and forcing amendment after amendment. I don't know what the result will be. Term limits for judges? Then basically we've ratified their status as a "super legislature."
I don't know.
AFAIK, SCOTUS does not have any power to determine the marriage laws of individual states. Whether a polygamist marriage in MA would need to be recognized by CT would be a question for SCOTUS, IMO.
I have a hard time with a legal princple that allows lower courts to uphold laws that institutionalize intrinsic evils, the criminalization of which would incur no social evil.
For the question of determining issues under the MA constitution, the MA SJC is not a lower court in comparison to SCOTUS. Assuming no federal or constitutional issues exist, the MA SJC is higher than SCOTUS in this area.
Whatever the moral issues involved, SCOTUS simply has no jurisdiction here. To allow SCOTUS to determine whether gay marriage is constitutional under the MA constitution would put the last nail in the coffin of federalism.
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.