SCOTUS Skips Out on Same-Sex 'Marriage' in Massachusetts
by Allie Martin, Bill Fancher, and Jody Brown
November 30, 2004
(AgapePress) - Advocates of traditional marriage, while admitting they are not surprised, are expressing their disappointment that the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen not to hear a challenge to the legalization of same-sex "marriage" in the State of Massachusetts. They say the high court has missed a chance to take a stand for voters' rights over judicial activism.
The Supreme Court sidestepped a dispute over homosexual marriages on Monday, rejecting a challenge to the nation's only law sanctioning such unions. Justices had been asked by conservative groups to overturn the November 2003 decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalizing same-sex marriage. The justices declined, without comment.
Mat Staver | |
Florida-based Liberty Counsel had argued in their Supreme Court filing that the U.S. Constitution should "protect the citizens of Massachusetts from their own state supreme court's usurpation of power." Mat Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, had stated that federal courts should defend people's right "to live in a republican form of government free from tyranny, whether that comes at the barrel of a gun or by the decree of a court."Staver had more to say following the high court's decision on Monday. "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," he stated. "Marriage will be defined by someone. I would rather have it defined by the people of the United States instead of the judiciary."
Erik Stanley of Liberty Counsel says he was not surprised that the Supreme Court chose not to hear the case. Like Staver, he says the only recourse is the passage of a Federal Marriage Amendment -- a move endorsed by the White House. In the meantime, he says, the Massachusetts situation poses a problem for the rest of the country by creating what he describes as "a huge mess."
"If the Massachusetts constitution is amended sometime in the future, will those same-sex marriages entered into in the meantime still be valid?" Stanley asks. "And if so, what happens when those Massachusetts couples may move to another state and attempt to have that state recognize their marriage? It will create a lot more litigation in the court system."
Liberty Counsel had filed the lawsuit on behalf of Robert Largess, the vice president of the Catholic Action League, and 11 Massachusetts state lawmakers. Legislators in the Bay State will now decide whether to put the issue before their electorate in November 2006. Earlier this month, 11 states overwhelmingly approved amendments to their constitutions protecting the traditional definition of marriage, effectively banning same-sex unions.
In Boston
A city attorney in Boston had told justices in court papers that the people who filed the suit have not shown they suffered an injury and could not bring a challenge to the Supreme Court. Gary Buseck of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) told Associated Press he was not surprised the high court did not intervene, calling the suit a "Hail Mary" pass.
Buseck says it was a long shot for conservative groups to take their challenge to the Supreme Court. "This was a federal claim that was being made. It just wasn't a very good one," the attorney says. "In my mind, it wasn't ever going to get anywhere -- but it was really like a 'Hail Mary' pass trying to find some way to stop us."
Despite the setback, a Boston-based marriage group says it will not give up. Thomas Shields, chairman of The Coalition for Marriage & Family, says his organization is not slowing down -- and in fact, is reaffirming its commitment to defend traditional marriage in the Bay State.
Shields adds that his group will keep fighting for the right to allow the citizenry of Massachusetts to decide the issue. "Voters have rejected same-sex marriage wherever and whenever it's been on the ballot," he notes. "Here in Massachusetts, public opinion surveys indicate more than 70 percent of registered voters want to vote and want to have their views recorded on the same issue."
'Flagrant' Violation of Voters' Rights
Carrie Gordon Earll of Focus on the Family says the Supreme Court's inaction will fuel support for a national amendment to ban same-sex marriage. She says her group is disappointed the Supreme Court is not taking up the case of gay marriage in Massachusetts.
"While it may not be a surprise, it's still disappointing because here again you have an opportunity for the high court to address an important issue -- in this case, the national definition of marriage," Earll says. "And more than anything, I think the outcome of this will be feeding more support for a Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."
Earll says same-sex marriage has been a hot topic -- and feelings run strong on both sides. "The electorate is growing weary of this. We saw that November 2," she points out. "We think that will continue to be the sentiment among the people of this country, that they want to be the ones who decide this -- and they do not want marriage to be tinkered with; they want it to be one man and one woman because that is what's best for everyone."
Bob Knight | |
And another pro-family activist is outraged the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear the challenge to the Massachusetts court ruling that opened the door to same-sex marriage. Bob Knight of the Culture and Family Institute says that indicates a very serious problem."For the court to skip this egregious violation of constitution rights of the people of Massachusetts shows they're not that interested in upholding the Constitution itself," he states.
Knight says the high court's decision was a "flagrant" violation of the people's right to govern themselves. "The Massachusetts justices made up out of whole cloth a right to sodomy-based marriage in John Adams' Constitution," he says, referring to the November 2003 ruling. "You'd think this was so blatant, right up there with knocking God out of the Pledge of Allegiance, that they should have taken the case."
Meanwhile the White House says President Bush still supports the proposed Constitutional ban. Speaking at a news conference, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said the Supreme Court decision has not changed President Bush's mind about a Constitutional amendment barring homosexual marriage.
"The president continues to emphasize the importance of moving forward on a constitutional amendment that would allow the people's voice to be heard and not allow this issue to be decided by activist judges or local officials," McClellan said.
And the president's position, he contends, has widespread backing. "The America people strongly support protecting the sanctity of marriage," he noted, saying the results of constitutional amendment votes in 11 states on Election Day demonstrate "the kind of broad support there is for protecting this sacred institution."
Associated Press contributed to this story.
