Federal Judge Sifts Mass. Homosexual Marriage Case Merits as Monday Deadline Nears

by Jenni Parker, Allie Martin, and Bill Fancher
May 13, 2004

(AgapePress) - As a federal district judge weighs arguments in a lawsuit to stop same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, pro-family legal analysts are watching the case closely. The suit accuses the seven justices of the state's Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of usurping the legislature's authority in a ruling last November legalizing homosexual marriage.

At Wednesday's proceedings District Judge Joseph Tauro denied the Massachusetts attorney general's request to dismiss the suit against the SJC and agreed to hear the case. Also denied by the federal judge was the petition of the Goodridge plaintiffs, represented by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), to be parties to the litigation.

Mat Staver

The case against the SJC was argued by Liberty Counsel president Mathew Staver on behalf of 11 state legislators and a Boston resident; it focused on the question of whether the state court has the power to define marriage. Staver's argument was largely based on the Guarantee Clause of the Massachusetts constitution, which deals with the prescribed separation of powers of different branches of government.

Tauro listened closely as both sides argued their cases, and he is expected to rule by the end of the week. Meanwhile, state officials are scheduled to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Monday. Regardless of which side prevails in the district court case, an immediate appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston can be expected.

Staver says it is encouraging that Judge Tauro is giving his Guarantee Clause argument such careful consideration. "We are pleased that the judge recognized that under the Clause, a federal court has the authority to ensure that separation of powers as provided for in the Massachusetts Constitution is respected," he said.

Steve Crampton

Federal Implications, National Impact
But Steve Crampton, chief counsel with the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy (CLP), notes that the SJC's ruling was a violation not only of the state constitution, but of the Constitution of the United States as well. The CLP attorney explains, "There is a requirement that every state and citizens of the state be guaranteed a republican form of government -- in other words, a government of the people. And by the Supreme Judicial Court's overreaching here, they have violated that federal constitutional principle."

Also, just as the SJC's actions have had an effect that reaches beyond the borders of Massachusetts, Crampton says the impact of Judge Tauro's decision will likewise be far-reaching. "All of these bogus [marriage] licenses that have been issued in California and Oregon and elsewhere are just that," he says, "bogus -- they're fake licenses." But what Massachusetts is gearing up to issue, Crampton warns, "would be a genuine, certifiable license from a state court and would engender all sorts of additional legal problems and other social problems for the rest of the nation."

Besides agreeing that the Massachusetts high court judges overstepped the bounds of its authority, some critics are also calling the Goodridge ruling just one more example of liberal judges thwarting the will of the people.

President and CEO Kellyanne Conway of the Polling Company says all of their national surveys show that the vast majority of U.S. citizens do not want to expand the definition of marriage. "An overwhelming majority of Americans express their insistence that traditional marriage be protected, saying it is both 'a cornerstone of American society' and should exist only between one man and one woman," she says.

Conway says the surveys also show that most Americans, including the majority of born-again Christians, Republican voters, elder voters, and African-American voters, "consistently oppose" the idea of civil unions as well as same-sex marriage. However, pro-family critics believe activist judges have demonstrated that the will of the people obviously means nothing to them.

California's Homosexual 'Marriage' Bill Stalled
But as the Monday deadline for implementing legalized homosexual marriage in Massachusetts draws near, California activists' legislative efforts to provide full marital rights to same-sex couples in their state have hit a snag. The full-blown homosexual marriage bill known as AB 1967 was put on hold Wednesday, pending fiscal review by the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Citing the state's economic crisis as the reason for the delay, the committee chair expressed support for the policy of same-sex marriage, but said the bill must be suspended and taken under advisement.

Randy Thomasson

Testifying against the legislation was Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families. He told the committee that AB 1967 "robs the voters of their rights, destroys the uniqueness of marriage, and depletes the state treasury to fund a radical attack on marriage for a man and a woman."

Members of Responsible Citizens, California Family Council, California Catholic Conference, and Concerned Women for America also offered testimony against the bill. Pro-family advocates, noting that AB 1967 is stalled but still alive, are urging citizens to continue calling their government representatives, e-mailing, and rallying to protect traditional marriage.