Mass Supreme Court Hears Bid To Halt Gay Marriages

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/05/050205massCourt.htm

The Supreme Judicial Court which paved the way for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts today will hear arguments seeking to have its ruling set aside.

The Catholic Action League in papers filed with the court, argues that same-sex marriage should be halted until residents vote on a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay nuptials.

A judge last May, days before the ruling allowing gay marriage was to go into effect, rejected a bid by the League and the Thomas More Center sought to have the SJC ruling delayed. (story)

[Zenlitened]

1. Hey, no catholic-bashing!

:puke:

[Ian David]

2. See prior thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x10845

[Ian David]

3. It looks like the anti-gay idiots just got their heads handed to them

The lawyers for the state of Massachusetts and for The Goodwin Family didn't even bother to make arguments, they just asked to "rest on their briefs."

I missed part of it, but it looks like the anti-gay people tried and failed to get one of the justices to recuse himself from the case on the grounds he "abused his privilege."

That is not how you endear yourself to the court.

[TaleWgnDg]

5. No, that's incorrect, in law.

.
No, that's incorrect, in law. Regarding the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court oral arguments heard today in Doyle v. Goodridge, the justices were asking the appellant side why -- on what legal basis -- they were appearing b4 the Court today. Did the single Justice "abuse his discretion?" Or did the single Justice make an "error of law?" Those are the two legal questions, typically, argued on appeal. And, the appellants didn't articulate a rational legal response in their oral argument. As for anything that they wrote in their filings, I haven't read their brief or other filings.

Hell, Chester Darling (attorney for the Roman Catholic Church's Doyle who is the Executive Director of The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts Inc., appellant) didn't even articulate why he had legal standing, the pompous ass. LOL

And, yup, you are right-on about those two attorneys who didn't present any oral argument (unless the Justices wanted them to answer any of their questions and there were none) because they rested on their written briefs. What else is new? It's been argued TWO TIMES BEFORE !!

I find that the Court bent over backwards to allow this lawsuit to go forward and be heard b4 them as they did today. And I believe that the Court has given the Roman Catholic Church its day in court to be heard about their (legally and morally) stupid arguments. Now, the Court will articulate in lovely legal prose all the whys that IT'S NOT A RELIGIOUS QUESTION -- instead its a matter of law and thereby uphold Goodridge as the law of Massachusetts.


Know who is working AGAINST same-sex marriage in the halls of our statehouse and elsewhere:

L to R, conferring inside the MA Statehouse during the 2004 Massachusetts Constitutional Convention whether to amend the MA state constitution against same-sex marriage and removing other benefits and privileges from homosexuals in Massachusetts:

(1) MA Representative Philip Travis (.pdf format, Adobe Reader necessary), Democrat, of Rehoboth, MA, (religious affiliation: "Christian") chief sponsor of the 2004 anti-gay MA amendment, and who has opposed same-sex marriage as a party to many MA and federal lawsuits, and who has co-sponsored a bill to remove the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court justices who authored (or concurred in) the Goodridge opinion allowing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts;

(2) MA Representative Mark J. Carron, Democrat, of Southbridge, MA, (a Roman Catholic and Third Degree, Knights of Columbus) who votes anti-gay (anything), co-sponsor of Travis' 2004 anti-gay MA amendment, and who has worked with Brian Camenker of Article 8 Alliance to remove the MA Supreme Judicial Court justices who authored (or concurred in) the Goodridge opinion allowing same-sex marriage in MA, and who has been a party (.pdf format, Adobe Reader necessary) to litigation AGAINST same-sex marriage in both state and federal courts including the U.S. Supreme Court;

(3) Attorney Daniel Avila who is a paid lobbyist (client #950462) at the statehouse and elsewhere for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, Inc., (which is a Massachusetts corporation of the Roman Catholic Church headed by the Bishops of the Dioceses of Fall River, Springfield, Worcester, and Archdiocese of Boston/Archbishop of Boston, Most Rev. Seán Patrick O'Malley, OFM Cap). As such, Attorney Avila lobbies for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, Inc. (Massachusetts corporation ID #666002658) regarding such matters as anti-gay issues, anti-abortion issues, anti-in vitro fertilization issues, anti-right-to-die-with-dignity (Terri Schiavo-like) issues, anti-stem cell research issues, anti-contraception (including no condoms for AIDS/HIV) issues, abstinence-only sex education in public schools, and propagation of other Roman Catholic Church related religious issues in Massachusetts; and

(4) Reverend Ron Crews, Republican, of Ashland, MA, a fundamentalist preacher, a carpet-bagger from Georgia who is a paid lobbyist (#1367) for the "Massachusetts Family Institute, Inc." (MA corporate ID #043113783) a hate-mongering and gay-bashing religion-into-law fundamentalist organization and as former president of "Massachusetts Family Institute, Inc." filed an amicus brief against same-sex marriage and against same-sex civil unions with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the Goodridge case, who as a Georgia state representative opposed abortion, sought to create "covenant marriages," to have Creationism taught in Georgia public schools and abstinence-only "sex education" taught in Georgia public schools and a statutory redefinition of marriage as only for one man and one woman, and who recently ran unsuccessfully against incumbent U.S. Representative James McGovern, Democrat, Worcester.

For perusing summarized anti-same-sex marriage amici briefs, e.g., Massachusetts Catholic Conference, Inc., Massachusetts Family Institute, Inc., and others, filed in Goodridge, go to: http://www.mlgba.org/briefs/AmicusIssue.PDF (.pdf format, Adobe Reader necessary).

See also: http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/03/29/how_lawmakers_cast_their_final_vote_on_the_gay_marriage_amendment/ (BosGlobe, 3/29/04, How Lawmakers Cast Their Final Vote on the Gay Marriage Amendment, Massachusetts Constitutional Convention 2004) (as last visited Monday, April 25, 2005).
__________________________________________________________________

[Ian David]

6. He had legal standing because he was a citizen!

Therefore, all citizens would have standing in all cases.

Naturally.

Let legal chaos ensue?

I think not.

[TaleWgnDg]

4. Duplicate post. Please see DU thread . . .

.
Duplicate post. Please see DU thread on Thursday, April 28, 2005 post at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x10845

BTW, all Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court oral arguments are planned to be *live* webcasts. . . check out the info on the above-mentioned DU thread.