Supreme Court Won't Block Gay Marriages

[Johnny Stew]

Supreme Court Won't Block Gay Marriages

By DENISE LAVOIE, Associated Press Writer

BOSTON - The Supreme Court refused Friday to block the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriages from taking place here starting next week.

The justices declined without comment to intervene and block clerks from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in Massachusetts. The state's highest court had ruled in November that the state Constitution allows gay couples to marry, and declared that the process would begin Monday.

The Supreme Court's decision, in an emergency appeal filed Friday by gay marriage opponents, does not address the merits of the claim that the state Supreme Judicial Court overstepped its bounds with the landmark decision.

A stay had been sought by a coalition of state lawmakers and conservative activists. The stay request had been filed with Supreme Court Justice David Souter, a Massachusetts native who handles appeals from the region. He referred the matter to the full nine-member court.

Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of the Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which sought the stay, said he was disappointed by the ruling. He is still looking forward to arguing the case next month before the federal appeals court, and then this fall before the Supreme Court.

Advocates for same-sex couples were relieved to hear the Supreme Court declined to intervene.

"Couples who aren't tied in to the recent legal and legislative actions have been nervous wrecks about whether they could marry starting Monday," said Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. "Now they can all breathe a sigh of relief."

A federal judge ruled against a coalition of state lawmakers and conservative activists, including groups in Boston, Michigan, Florida and Mississippi, on Thursday. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision Friday, setting up the Supreme Court appeal. The appeals court agreed to hear arguments on the request to bar same-sex unions in June, after several weeks of legal gay marriages.

"This is a setback. This is certainly not the end of the road," Staver said, adding that the Supreme Court rarely issues emergency injunctions. "We're going to continue to the next step, and after that, we look forward to arguing the case before the Supreme Court, whether we win or lose — that's where the case will ultimately end."

Mary Bonauto, the lead attorney for the seven same-sex couples who sued the state for the right to marry, said she was relieved, but not surprised.

"Reduced to its essence, this has always been a case where people unhappy with the court ruling were trying to dress it up in a federal constitutional claim that Massachusetts was a tyranny," Bonauto said.

But all the SJC did in its ruling, she said, "was what courts have been doing for hundreds of years ... reviewing laws for compliance with the Constitution and saying when laws deny basic rights to group of people."

Staver had told justices in a filing that they were not asking the Supreme Court "to take any position on the highly politicized and personally charged issue of same-sex marriage."

Instead, Staver wrote, they wanted the court to consider whether the Massachusetts judges wrongly redefined marriage. That task should be handled by elected legislators, he said.

In the Supreme Court's last ruling involving gay rights, justices ruled last year that states may not punish gay couples for having sex. In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia complained that the court "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda" and was inviting same-sex marriage.

[RavenOfRhiannon]

This is a good sign, but it is still an uphill battle.

Anyone else interested in helping out should go to www.hrc.meetup.com I am the host for the Odessa/Midland meetup, and even though we only have 9 members at present, this is an incredible way to get grassroots efforts off the ground.
The ANTI-Marriage Amendment may be a federal problem, but there are still many state and local laws prohibiting recognition of same sex marriages...

Randy

[darklinensuit]

This really is such a dumb issue. I cannot believe that with all the problems we could be solving we allow our leaders to waste time debating whether perfectly responsible citizens should have the right to marry one another. Future generations will shake their heads at us.

- Jake

[RavenOfRhiannon]

I agree Jake. This is not a fight I want to have right now. But since it is underway, I cannot sit on the sidelines and watch while I am relegated to second class citizen...

[darklinensuit]

Originally Posted by RavenOfRhiannon

I agree Jake. This is not a fight I want to have right now. But since it is underway, I cannot sit on the sidelines and watch while I am relegated to second class citizen...

IMO, none of us can afford to sit back. It's you guys being targeted today, it will be me tomorrow.

- Jake

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by darklinensuit

IMO, none of us can afford to sit back. It's you guys being targeted today, it will be me tomorrow.

This is what I keep trying to get across to people... this is not "just a gay issue." This is a civil rights issue, and the ramifications of an ammendment like this passing, affect everyone.

They want to block people from having the right to marry whom they love. What's next?

(And Randy... I'm VERY happy to see you weighing-in here. I guess nagging really does work! )

[sparky]

I think the more people bellyache about this, the more they look silly. Look at all the marriages already done all over the country - and the world did not implode, explode, or stop spinning on it's axis. Whose marriage will these new ones threaten ? Perhaps marriages where somebody wants to leave and run off with their best friend ? Who knows. People are goofy.

[dissention]

I was in Northampton yesterday (considered the biggest "gay" town in MA, next to Provincetown) and while I was browsing thorugh one of my fave bookstores, I could see the couples going into and coming out of the town hall. People had posters saying "Good Luck!" and "Best Wishes" and I thought it was so beautiful because there wasn't a single person there that was protesting against the marriages. It was very touching to see people come out of the building, newly married, and so happy that they were crying. I'll never forget that.

[The Tower]

Should me and my partner of eleven years fly off to my old Alma Mater (Berklee College of Music) and get HITCHED?!?!?!?






Nah!! We coulda done that ceremony thing years ago....



"We don't need no piece of paper from the city hall
Keeping us tight and true, no-
My old man- keeping away those blues....." -Joni (goddess) Mitchell 1970

[sparky]

Originally Posted by The Tower

Should me and my partner of eleven years fly off to my old Alma Mater (Berklee College of Music) and get HITCHED?!?!?!?

Tower, I have three good friends who went to Berklee ! What years did you attend ?

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by sparky

Tower, I have three good friends who went to Berklee ! What years did you attend ?

'87 through '89. I was so, so, soooooooo broke from that joint! Great school, great staff, great students, but way too expensive for me.

[darklinensuit]

Originally Posted by The Tower

'87 through '89. I was so, so, soooooooo broke from that joint! Great school, great staff, great students, but way too expensive for me.

Who told you to blow a lot of money on a joint?

- Jake

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by dissention

I was in Northampton yesterday

Aaahh. My old stomping grounds.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Aaahh. My old stomping grounds.

So you're the one who crushed all the flowerbeds! Mrs. Bitschlapp was furious!

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by darklinensuit

Who told you to blow a lot of money on a joint?

- Jake

Yeah, that's the ticket. I sunk $30,000+ on pot....

If I did THAT, I would STILL be high these 15 years later!