WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a dispute over gay 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 gay 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 (news - web sites) in Boston. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...p/20041129/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_gay_marriage I can't help but compliment this court once again with regard to upholding states rights. Good work.
It is the correct decision given that the Mass court ruled on a state law issue that was decided on state law gorunds. As for the "republican" clause, that clause had fallen out of use, the only possible issue being that by having a court decide, it took the decision out of the hands of the legislature.
Wait a second, according to the posts on this forum, the SCOTUS was supposed to sign off on sending everybody who has a Rage Against The Machine CD to a Gulag; now that Bush was re-elected (or elected for the first time, depending on your outlook)? Now, the World Famous Supremes Team won't even talk about the Reddest of all Red State issues?
If they rule that Massachusetts didn't have the right to institute the law per State's rights, it means other states don't have the right to outlaw it, either.
You see, the Dems/Liberals/Leftists around here moan and groan about Bush's potential appointments to the SCOTUS. Why? Because when they can't win at the ballot box, they gather up all their trial lawyers and head to the courts, which is in the end their only recourse. And so they see conservative judges appointed by Bush coming down the pike...and are soiling their pants, thinking that all they will do is implement/perpetuate a non-leftist conservative agenda. But wait!! Stop the presses!! Guess what?? Judges act like....JUDGES!! Migod!!! They read the law and the constitution. They understand it. They follow it. So when the states have rights, they tend to allow them (oh, and by the way, they'll do it for individuals, too.) Fancy that!! The SCOTUS punts on the Massachusetts law. And the sky is still up there. Amazing, eh?
Is now a good time to point out that the "full faith and credit" issue was also punted? Ya know, the whole reason for all these Defense of Marriage Acts? The real conflict in this whole thing? When a Massachusetts couple relocates to California (yeah, we passed one of those stupid-ass acts, too), THAT's the Constitutional conflict. What have we come to when libertarians celebrate the Supreme Court allowing State Supreme Courts to rule on state laws?
Now is as good a time as any, But my understanding is that was not the case before the court. The case before the court was whether the actions of the Mass Supreme Judicial Court violated the US constitution and the answer is clearly no. Yes, and that was not the issue. I am a libertarian (sort of) but also a federalist -- my feeling is that unless the state action clearly violates the federal constitution, federal courts should stay out of state law issues. Let Alabama decide what is best for Alabama and New York what is best for New York.
I imagine that the court will hear such a case, when one comes up. But so far it hasn't so it hasn't.