Surprised

[SirMyztiq]

Who would of thought that the Supreme Court would refuse??

I sure didn't. Now I'm beginning to hope that none of them leave!



[url="http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/29/scotus.samesex.marriage.ap/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/29/scotus.s...e.ap/index.html[/url]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a dispute over same-sex marriages, rejecting a challenge to the nation's only law sanctioning such unions.

Justices had been asked by conservative groups to overturn the year-old decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage. They declined, without comment.

In the past year, at least 3,000 gay Massachusetts couples have wed, although voters may have a chance next year to change the state constitution to permit civil union benefits to same-sex couples, but not the institution of marriage.

Critics of the November 2003 ruling by the highest court in Massachusetts argue that it violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government in each state. They lost at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

Their attorney, Mathew Staver, said in a Supreme Court filing that the Constitution should "protect the citizens of Massachusetts from their own state supreme court's usurpation of power."

Federal courts, he said, 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."

Merita Hopkins, 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. "Deeply felt interest in the outcome of a case does not constitute an actual injury," she said.

Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly told justices that voters can overrule the Supreme Court by adopting a constitutional amendment.

The lawsuit was filed by the Florida-based Liberty Counsel on behalf of Robert Largess, the vice president of the Catholic Action League, and 11 state lawmakers.

The conservative law group had persuaded the Supreme Court in October to consider another high profile issue, the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on government property. The court agreed to look at that church-state issue before Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was diagnosed with thyroid cancer.

He is working from home while receiving chemotherapy and radiation and will miss court sessions for the next two weeks.

State legislators will decide whether to put the issue before Massachusetts voters in November 2006. Voters in 11 states approved constitutional amendments banning gay marriage in November elections. President Bush has promised to make a federal anti-gay marriage amendment a priority of his second term.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court narrowly ruled that gays and lesbians had a right under the state constitution to wed.

The nation's high court had stayed out of the Massachusetts fight on a previous occasion. Last May, justices refused to intervene and block clerks from issuing the first marriage licenses.

The case is Largess v. Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts,

[burnsspivey]

A show of sense on the Supreme Court's part here. What the people without standing were arguing was that the court system couldn't interpret the law -- certainly something that the SC would have had to strike down. It was a carp argument on their part aside from the fact that they didn't have standing to sue.

[Oik]

It's not prudence, its restriction. The Supreme Court has no real power on this issue, as there is no law to base a decision on. DOMA doesn't outlaw gay marriage, it only says that the government and other states don't have to recognize benefits given to people in relationships other than between one man and one woman.

This is actually silly since the Supreme Court has been abusing it's authority...great time to stop. They should pick whether they believe in a loose interpretation of the constitution or a strict interpretation and just stick to that!

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Oik' date='Nov 30 2004, 08:14 PM'] It's not prudence, its restriction. The Supreme Court has no real power on this issue, as there is no law to base a decision on. DOMA doesn't outlaw gay marriage, it only says that the government and other states don't have to recognize benefits given to people in relationships other than between one man and one woman.

This is actually silly since the Supreme Court has been abusing it's authority...great time to stop. They should pick whether they believe in a loose interpretation of the constitution or a strict interpretation and just stick to that! [/quote]
Actually the refused to hear it because the complainant had no standing -- not because they didn't have the authority to hear the case.

DOMA is another issue altogether. I'm sure that there will be a case brought at some point against it under the "full faith and credit" clause.

[the lumberjack]

wait, ummm...guys (and gals) they decided to NOT overturn the decision against same sex marriages...which means that it was okay with them.

at least thats what I got...

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Dec 1 2004, 04:49 PM'] wait, ummm...guys (and gals) they decided to NOT overturn the decision against same sex marriages...which means that it was okay with them.

at least thats what I got... [/quote]
They decided not to [b]hear[/b] the case. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are okay with gay marriage. It simply means that they won't hear a case without merit. By without merit here I mean that the people suing don't have standing and since the lower court ruled that way they don't have to hear it to determine it.