BOSTON, Dec. 27, 2006
Mass. Court Won't Force Gay Marriage Vote
High Court Chides Lawmakers, But Says It Can't Order Them To Vote On Gay Marriage Ban
-
(AP / CBS)
-
Photo Essay Married In Massachusetts Couples exchange vows in the nation's first state-sanctioned same-sex weddings.
-
Interactive Same-Sex Marriage Debate State-by-state coverage, opinions, history, photos and a look at the amendment process.
-
Interactive Gay In The U.S.A. State-by-state laws on gay issues, the marriage debate and photo essays.
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.
Lawmakers are due to meet on Jan. 2 — the last day of the current session — to consider the proposed amendment. Before the scolding from the court, there had been widespread speculation they would adjourn without action, effectively killing the amendment.
In November, the Legislature had recessed before voting on the issue.
The high court in its ruling rebuked lawmakers for that move, saying drafters of the provision that allows citizen petitions "did not intend a simple majority of the joint session to have the power effectively to block progress of an initiative."
"Those members who now seek to avoid their lawful obligations, by a vote to recess without a roll call vote ... ultimately will have to answer to the people who elected them," the court said.
The state attorney general's office had urged the court to stay out of the dispute, citing the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches. It argued that voters unhappy with lawmakers over the issue could vote them out of office.
More than 8,000 gay couples have been married since 2004 in Massachusetts, the only state to allow gay marriage. Other states offer gay couples similar rights but not the title of marriage: New Jersey joins Connecticut and Vermont in February in offering civil unions, and California has domestic partnerships.
©MMVI The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From U.S.
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
It is interesting that the while 50%+ members voted to adjorn, the proposal only needed 25% approval to get on the ballot. That pretty much says they don't want it on the ballot.
Even this discussion shows that if you use the term "gay" about any issue, it changes the discussion from how a representative government operates in a democratic society to how to make "them" invisible.
Remember the oft quoted statement about Nazi Germany, when they came for the Jews I said nothing because I wasn't a Jew. When they came for the unionists, I said nothing because I didn't belong to a union. When they came for me there was no one left to speak for me.
We must maintain our form of government at all costs, or our country is nothing. So Massachusetts citizens need to ask their legislature for redress of their grievances.
3. It hurts children--The absence of gay marriage hurts children. Like it or not, gay parents are on the rise and are raising children all over our nation. Those children have no legal protection, because in many instances, the state does not recognize that child's parents as his or her parents. If protecting children is really what you care about, you'd care to rectify the situation that is harming children every day.
In conclusion--gay marriage hurts no one and will in fact provide equal protection for those who need it. Furthermore, it is not the role of a court to legislate our rights based upon some vague specter of "morality." To constitutionally amend someone into second class citizenship is not what our nation should be about.
1. It's immoral--well, morality is a very vague word. What I consider moral, someone else may well find immoral and vice-versa. However, definitions of moral behavior aside, it's not the role of the courts to uphold morality, but rather to examine the legality and constitutionality of legislation.
2. It's harmful to society--how so? Who is hurt by two people who love each other marrying? People will say all kinds of things are harmed. Many argue that marriage is a fundamental institution of our society, yet they also argue that gay marriage will somehow harm straight marriage. So which is it? Is marriage a fundamental social structure or is it some weak-kneed idea that needs protection? You can't have it both ways.
I should know better than to comment on anything you post but you need help, alot of help.
Well at least you admit you are closedminded. maybe someday you will realize that many of them are just like you and me execpt who they happen to love. I agree it should not be in the courts either, I think all people should have equal rights
Posted by GeneRey at 03:14 PM : Dec 27, 2006
Morality is a personal opinion you have no right to restrict someone's rights because you think what they do is Morally wrong.
What about the civil rights of MORALITY & COMMON SENSE LOL. I luv it. YOU GO AMERICA!!!
They deserve whats coming .....
- by ammermantm December 27, 2006 5:20 PM EST
- the civil rights of a minority shouldn't be put to a popular vote.
- Reply to this comment
See all 19 Comments