Beacon Hill and Supreme Judicial Court follow the law; Gay marriage ban moves forward
Give credit to the Massachusetts legislature and court systems today for following the law. The Supreme Judicial Court, the same court that mandated gay marriage, ruled that our legislators had a duty to vote on the gay marriage ban to the state constitution, and the legislature complied. Senate President Traviglini deserves special credit for pushing for a vote all along.
Archived in: Constitution, Gay Marriage, MassachusettsJanuary 3, 2007 at 10:47 am | Trackback
9 comments
As most who know me from being a writer here at NER know, I am in the “don’t give a crap” abot gay marriage camp. However, I believe the proponents of Gay Marriage did themselves a diservice in this whole process. Even people who support gay marriage were offfended by te way the proccess was subverted, not so much by the SJC, but the Legislature.
The Legislature backed themselves into a corner by not taking a stand on the ballot measure, basically denying the people the right to vote and ignoring the initiative petition process. This has happened before (tax rollback anyone) but this was the icing on the cake as they say.
This became about the process and not about the marriage issue. All the peopel wanted was to have a say. I believe the Gay Marriage question will pass in favor of Gay Marriage. At least it will be a law decided by the people and not imposed by a court which is in my view, more important.
I do like that the SJC slapped the Legislature in the ass though they have no authority to compell action. I wish more people understood the seperation between the Legislative and Judicial branches and would understand the Courts cannot order a Legislature to vote, just as a Legislature cannot order a court to rule a certain way.
Correct me if I’m wrong, Mike, but The Court didn’t rule that MA law prohibited gay marriage, but that it didn’t specifically PERMIT it. And that’s what the legislature was ordered to do. To me, that’s unusual.
Here in CT, civil unions are now permitted for practical and financial purposes; but that’s simply an invitation for suits.
Rhod, what the SJC rules in the Goodridge decision from last year was that the “equal rights” amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution did not allow marriage license to be denied to same-sex couples. It then signaled to the legislature (it didn’t really order them) that it ought to get busy amending whatever statutes were contrary to its ruling so that there was no mass confusion among town clerks, vital records officers, hospitals, etc.
The most recent case that prompted the ConCon to actually vote was in response to the Governor’s lawsuit that claimed that Article 48 (the initiative amendment process) of the constitution requires the ConCon to take an up or down vote on all proposed amendments before it — but it said it didn’t have the power to order them to vote because there is no remedy stated within the amendment and there is Separation of Powers between the branches.
Have I thoroughly confused you?
Wavemaker, I am not confused. I stand by my remarks, even if they only make sense to me.
It is the same as the USSC ordering the US Congress to vote on something. They can’t. Just as the Congress cannot order the USSC to render a decision one way or the other in a case.
My point was that the legislature screwed up by, unintentionally I believe, allowing the issue to be framed as “let the people decide” instead of on the merits of the question. They figured they could just ignore it like so many other things they ignore. It backfired on them and it will again.
Even the SJC saw that when they rendered their decision.
Wave:
No, it’s convoluted, but not impenetrable either. If I’d made other choices in life, this kind of thing would have meant job security for me and other lawyers. But I didn’t. And it doesn’t, for me. But it does, for you. Thanks, Wave.
Whatever Mike.
As always, you’re most welcome, Rhod.
And BTW, if this sort of crap “meant job security” for me, I might have battled Saddam for one of those spots in the platform.
Wave:
I know. One reason I made other choices was the average income, the amount of real work necessary, the overhead, the BS, the worry, and the cost of the wardrobe. Those, and with my aptitude, I’d end up dealing with animal complaints and property-line disputes.
I was just being flippant. Sorry.
Oh come on Rhod — I come here for your flippancy.
Phew. Apology retracted. I have just so many in me.