Mountain Meadows Mitt puts gay marriage suit before full Mass. SJC

[Ian David]

Gay Marriage Suit going to Full SJC
by: Kai
Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 14:24:33 PM EST

(No surprise here -- too hot a potato for a single Justice to take a shot. - promoted by David)

In the interest of keeping everyone informed about what's going on, I pass along this tidbit from State House News:

In a decision handed down less than four hours after the hearing, Supreme Judicial Court Judith Cowin forwarded to the full seven-member court a lawsuit demanding that Senate President Robert Travaglini call a vote on a gay marriage ballot initiative or forcing Secretary of State William Galvin to put the amendment on the 2008 ballot. A hearing for arguments is set for December 20 at 9 am. In her decision, the plaintiffs, who include Gov. Mitt Romney and former Boston Mayor Ray Flynn, are required to submit briefs by Friday, December 8, and both the plaintiffs and defendants have to file an "agreed statement of facts" the same day. The defendants, represented by the attorney general's office, have their brief due on Monday, December 18. At the hearing before Cowin this morning, both sides said they were willing to go before the full court, but differed on the timing. The plaintiffs want action before January 1, a day before the Legislature resumes its Constitutional Convention, while the defendants preferred sometime next spring. "The defendants have no objection to such an approach and are willing to begin working with plaintiffs on a statement of agreed facts and an agreed-upon briefing schedule allowing argument to the full Court sometime in the Spring of 2007," Assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks yesterday wrote in a letter to the SJC. Story Developing


More:
http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5429

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Keep An Eye on Willard

Willard Romney is extraordinarily evil, and 20x smarter than Bush.

[IntravenousDemilo]

6. I saw that "Willard" movie. Creepy... n/m

[toadaway]

2. It's time for a new wedge issue. How about making beards illegal for those

under 65 - women included.

[sallyseven]

3. He hired one of Delay's lackeys for his

campaign. Isn't he wonderful. Really smart.

[IntravenousDemilo]

4. After reading this, I'm still not sure what it's about. I need some background.

I know there are gay marriages in Massachusetts. I thought the thing was settled. You can't just remove people's rights once they've been enshrined and established, if the people haven't committed a crime -- it's downright unconstitutional. Or am I just being naive, or Canuck?

Nice moniker for Romney, by the way -- "Mountain Meadows Mitt". It conjures up an apt picture of Mormons massacring innocent people, just as Romney seems to want to do with certain people's equality rights.

[AB_Positive]

5. It's not technically a 'legal' right as such on the books there though...

from my understanding, the marriages are allowed due to a judge ruling that discrimination of marriage between straight and gay is illegal. However they (Romney) are going on against it with the counter logic - there's no law saying that two men or two women -can- marry, so we need a vote.


If enough people in mass want it though, even if they got the vote through (unlikely), it could backfire.

-AB+

[One_Life_To_Give]

7. The State Constitution doesn't specifically allow it

nor does it specifically prohibit it. Was the ruling from the SJC. So the legislature was ordered to change the laws to comply with the Constitution.


A conservative group collected 170,000 some-odd signatures (for list see Knowthyneighbor) to put a constitutional question on the ballot.


If they change the Constitution it can prevent anyone else from Marrying after the ammendment takes effect. I think the US Constitution will ensure that anyone who is married will stay that way. (Unless they decide themselves to divorce.)

The legislature is delaying any potential vote on the issue because they know the Cons have the 25% support needed to finish getting the question on the ballot. And nobody is interested in taking the risk that the staewide ballot will support equality or not.

Personnally I think it's the only way to put the issue to bed for Massachusetts. But letting the ballot question go to the polls is a high stakes gamble. I can't really blame those who prefere to keep this question off the ballot for now.