
Massachusetts's
highest court on Wednesday said it had no authority to
force lawmakers to vote on a proposed constitutional
amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Opponents of
same-sex marriage, angry that lawmakers failed to act
on the proposed amendment in November, had sued, asking the
court to clarify whether the state's constitution required
lawmakers to vote.
In its ruling the supreme judicial court wrote,
"Beyond resorting to aspirational language that relies
on the presumptive good faith of elected
representatives, there is no presently articulated judicial
remedy for the legislature's indifference to, or defiance
of, its constitutional duties." The same court had
ruled in 2003 that the state constitution guaranteed
gays the right to marry.
Opponents of same-sex marriage had collected
170,000 signatures to place an amendment on the 2008
ballot that would define marriage as a
union between a man and a woman, but their effort still
needed the support of a quarter of the legislature.
Lawmakers in November voted to recess rather than vote
on the question.
Same-sex marriage opponents, including Gov. Mitt
Romney, filed suit, arguing that the people's will was
being thwarted and that lawmakers were violating their
right to petition for a constitutional amendment. The
court said that drafters of the state provision that allows
for citizen petitions "did not intend a simple
majority of the joint session to have the power
effectively to block progress of an initiative."
A spokesman for Romney, who was on vacation, had
no immediate comment Wednesday. More than 8,000 gay
couples have been married since 2004 in Massachusetts,
the only state to allow same-sex marriage. Other states
offer similar rights but not the title of marriage to gay
couples: New Jersey joins Connecticut and Vermont in
February in offering civil unions, and California has
domestic partnerships. (Jay Lindsay, AP)
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
Be the first to comment on this story.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
Comments that do not concern specific articles in The Advocate or on Advocate.com will not be posted or published. See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.