Mass. High Court Refuses To Order Anti-Gay Amendment Vote

[William769]

(Boston, Massachusetts) A bid by Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to force the legislature to take up a proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage was rejected Wednesday by the state's highest court.

In an 11 page ruling the justices said that it had no authority to order lawmakers to vote on the measure.

Romney (R) and 10 others asked the court last week to force a vote, or failing that, direct the Secretary of State to put the issue on the 2008 ballot.

But the justices said the legislature was acting unconstitutionally but agreed in their ruling with Assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks who represented the legislature. Sacks told the court that under the separation of powers the justices could not force the lawmakers to act.

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/12/122706masscourt.htm



Them damn activist Judges! :sarcasm: I wonder how many fundie heads were exploding today?

[WindRavenX]

1. heh, I was eating dinner with my SO's VERY Mormon parents...

...and I snickered and giggled with glee with that came up on the news :D

They weren't too pleased with it LOL

[William769]

3. I think I would have done more than snicker.

[WindRavenX]

5. I was polite this time-- this is our first time really meeting

At OUR house though, we have a rainbow flag to be hung up-- in SLC, no less! ;)

[William769]

6. I can respect that.

[MethuenProgressive]

2. Not "refuse to order" - "had no authority to order"

Which is what Mitt Romney knew all long - he was just posturing for his future fund raisers and getting video footage for his campaign commercials. Republicans score big with their base when they're seen as being very anti-gay.

[William769]

4. With their base in the toilet right now.

More power to him.

[BattyDem]

7. This was a no-brainer

The court has no authority to order a vote. What part of "separation of powers" do the wingnuts not understand? :eyes:

[Sydnie]

8. Romney was out of the state for 211 days this year

He was out campaigning for his new job and this action is nothing more than another campaign issue for him. He can wring his hands and wail and say that he tried but the ungodly residents of Massachusetts just didn't understand the gravity of the situation. 211 day gone from his job. He makes blivet** seem like a hard worker with a track record like that!

My message to Mittens:

Take your toys and go home to UTAH Willard. We don't want you on our playground anymore. Don't go away mad ... just go the fuck away already. You know how to do it, you did it 211 times this year alone.

[dddem]

16. I hope all the time away helps, and he gets the nomination in 08.

I can't think of a single more beatable candidate than the mitten man. Go Willard!

[madmusic]

9. What a massive piece of... hypocricy

The Rethugs are always crying about "activist judges" and praising "deference to the legislature" and now they try to pull this.

Unbelievable.

[bliss_eternal]

10. Kicked and nominated...

more should see this news.

[Eric J in MN]

11. The court should enforce their state's constitution...

...even if some DU-ers are glad that banning gay marriage apparently won't be on the ballot.

I don't like this ruling of:
it's unconstitutional for the legislature not to act, but we won't order them to.

[William769]

13. ever hear of something called seperation of powers?

:eyes:

[Eric J in MN]

15. The concept shouldn't be interpreted in a way which makes

...the state Constitution unenforceable.

In NJ, the legislature was ordered to pass a bill for gay marriage or civil unions. Apparently, the NJ court didn't think the order would violate separation of powers.

[dsc]

17. actually they didn't

They gave the legislature a choice. Either pass civil unions, pass gay marriage or the court would act and establish gay marriage. In the MA case, the legislature decided not to act upon a referendum. The court can't make a legislature do one specific thing.

[Eric J in MN]

18. In NJ, the court ordered the legislature to pass legislation...

...which is a bigger demand then if the MA court merely ordered a vote in the legislature.

[dsc]

19. no they didn't

they told them to pass legislation or the court would step in and change the law for them. The court can't vote for the legislature. They can say do this or we will do that.

[Recursion]

12. Sounds similar to Marbury v. Madison

The judiciary is not simply a club for the legislative and executive to coerce each other with.

[terrya]

14. High Court to Mittens "shut the fuck up about it"

I think that's pretty damn conclusive.

Same-sex marriage is here to stay in Massachusetts. As it should be.