leekohler
Jul 10, 2006, 09:56 PM
They'll stop at nothing. This is beyond scary.
http://my.earthlink.net/article/pol?guid=20060710/44b1d0c0_3421_1334520060710-572558310
BOSTON - The same court that made Massachusetts the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage ruled that a proposal for a constitutional amendment that could ban future gay marriages can move forward.
The ruling came Monday on a lawsuit brought by gay-rights supporters who argued that Attorney General Tom Reilly was wrong to certify the question because the state's constitution bars any citizen-initiated amendment that seeks to reverse a judicial ruling.
The Supreme Judicial Court rejected that argument, paving the way for the state Legislature to take up the question during a constitutional convention Wednesday. The question would have to be approved by two consecutive legislative sessions before it could be placed on the 2008 ballot. Supporters need to win the votes of 50 lawmakers - 25 percent of the Legislature - in both sessions.
The same court, in a landmark 2003 ruling, cleared the way for same-sex marriages to begin in Massachusetts in May 2004. More than 8,000 gay and lesbian couples have married.
The Legislature has been grappling with same-sex marriage ever since, balancing the views of people who believe marriage should be limited to the one-man, one-woman definition; those who believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to have civil unions but not marriages; and those who believe all couples should be allowed to marry regardless of sexual orientation.
In its ruling Monday, the high court said the proposed amendment - which would restrict marriage to between one man and one woman - is not a reversal of its earlier ruling legalizing gay marriage, because it would leave intact the marriages of same-sex couples who already had wed.
"The underlying substantive law is simply changed to reflect the present intentions of the people, and that new law will be applied thereafter in any subsequent case or cases," the court said in its unanimous ruling.
But Justice John M. Greaney, in a concurring opinion, warned that approving the amendment would clearly be discriminatory because it would remove the rights of same-sex couples to receive the legal, social and financial benefits of marriage.
"The only effect of a positive vote will be to make same-sex couples, and their families, unequal to everyone else; this is discrimination in its rawest form," Greaney wrote.
Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which filed the lawsuit, said the fight is not over.
"So now, obviously, the focus is going to turn to the Legislature, which has a chance on Wednesday during the constitutional convention to do the right thing and defeat this amendment," she said.
Supporters of the amendment predicted they will have enough votes to win the first round of approval from the Legislature: "We are comfortably in excess of 50 votes," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.
Also on Monday, a California appeals court heard arguments over whether that state's ban on same-sex marriage should be upheld. The state is appealing a San Francisco judge's decision last year that cleared the way for California to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed. Gay nuptials have been put on hold pending the appeal.
The three-judge panel has 90 days to issue a ruling, but any decision is expected to be appealed to the California Supreme Court.
http://my.earthlink.net/article/pol?guid=20060710/44b1d0c0_3421_1334520060710-572558310
BOSTON - The same court that made Massachusetts the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage ruled that a proposal for a constitutional amendment that could ban future gay marriages can move forward.
The ruling came Monday on a lawsuit brought by gay-rights supporters who argued that Attorney General Tom Reilly was wrong to certify the question because the state's constitution bars any citizen-initiated amendment that seeks to reverse a judicial ruling.
The Supreme Judicial Court rejected that argument, paving the way for the state Legislature to take up the question during a constitutional convention Wednesday. The question would have to be approved by two consecutive legislative sessions before it could be placed on the 2008 ballot. Supporters need to win the votes of 50 lawmakers - 25 percent of the Legislature - in both sessions.
The same court, in a landmark 2003 ruling, cleared the way for same-sex marriages to begin in Massachusetts in May 2004. More than 8,000 gay and lesbian couples have married.
The Legislature has been grappling with same-sex marriage ever since, balancing the views of people who believe marriage should be limited to the one-man, one-woman definition; those who believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to have civil unions but not marriages; and those who believe all couples should be allowed to marry regardless of sexual orientation.
In its ruling Monday, the high court said the proposed amendment - which would restrict marriage to between one man and one woman - is not a reversal of its earlier ruling legalizing gay marriage, because it would leave intact the marriages of same-sex couples who already had wed.
"The underlying substantive law is simply changed to reflect the present intentions of the people, and that new law will be applied thereafter in any subsequent case or cases," the court said in its unanimous ruling.
But Justice John M. Greaney, in a concurring opinion, warned that approving the amendment would clearly be discriminatory because it would remove the rights of same-sex couples to receive the legal, social and financial benefits of marriage.
"The only effect of a positive vote will be to make same-sex couples, and their families, unequal to everyone else; this is discrimination in its rawest form," Greaney wrote.
Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which filed the lawsuit, said the fight is not over.
"So now, obviously, the focus is going to turn to the Legislature, which has a chance on Wednesday during the constitutional convention to do the right thing and defeat this amendment," she said.
Supporters of the amendment predicted they will have enough votes to win the first round of approval from the Legislature: "We are comfortably in excess of 50 votes," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.
Also on Monday, a California appeals court heard arguments over whether that state's ban on same-sex marriage should be upheld. The state is appealing a San Francisco judge's decision last year that cleared the way for California to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed. Gay nuptials have been put on hold pending the appeal.
The three-judge panel has 90 days to issue a ruling, but any decision is expected to be appealed to the California Supreme Court.
