Gay rights activists sue Mass. over ruling

[2952-0-0]

By Jason Szep
BOSTON (Reuters) - Gay rights lawyers filed on Tuesday a lawsuit to stop a proposed ballot measure aimed at overturning a court decision that made Massachusetts the first and only U.S. state to legalize gay marriage.

The lawsuit by the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) said the state's attorney general erred when he ruled in September that Massachusetts voters could decide in a 2008 poll to redefine marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

They said the decision by Thomas Reilly, a Democrat who is likely to run for governor this year, was unconstitutional because ballot initiatives cannot reverse judicial decisions under the state's Constitution.

"The attorney general simply got it wrong," Gary Buseck, GLAD's legal director, said in a statement.

Reilly's office said his decision was legally sound, adding that Reilly does not personally favor banning same-sex marriage.

Massachusetts' highest court ruled in 2003 that it was unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, paving the way for America's first same-sex marriages in May the following year.

Since then, about 7,000 gays and lesbians have wed in the state, and gay rights advocates across the country have sought to encourage other states to legalize same-sex marriages.

Those efforts have largely failed, most recently in Texas, which in November became the 19th U.S. state to approve a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

Homosexual couples in at least seven states have filed lawsuits seeking the right to marry, while as many as 10 states could see campaigns this year for amendments to uphold marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

'AN ELECTRIFYING ISSUE'

In Massachusetts, VoteOnMarriage.org -- a coalition of conservative and Christian groups -- proposed the 2008 ballot initiative to amend the state constitution by defining marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman.

Between September 21 and November 23 last year, they gathered more than twice the number of voter signatures needed for state legislators to put the question to the public.

On Tuesday they predicted the lawsuit would be defeated.

"We don't think the suit is credible," said Kristian Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, a backer of the initiative. "I think they were surprised at the magnitude of the number of signatures -- 170,000 -- which tells us what an electrifying issue this is with the people."

Conservatives and some religious groups say the issue is so important that voters should decide it, not the state Supreme Court.

Massachusetts' Republican governor, Mitt Romney, a devout Mormon with White House ambitions, supports their position.

The ballot initiative must be approved by 25 percent of the 200-member state Legislature this year and again in 2007 before it can go to voters.

If passed, it would not seek to annul marriage licenses already issued to same-sex couples.

GLAD said it expects the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County to consider the lawsuit against Reilly in the next few months.

[CARLHAYDEN]

So, lets see..

The State Supreme Court can amend the constitution by intentionally, willfully and maliciously misinterpreting the constution, but the people do not have the right to amend the state Constitution?

Bizarre!

Oh, and BTW, I don't think that there will be sufficent votes in the legislature to allow the people to vote on this issue.

Isn't it interesting that lefties will go to any lengths to prevent a vote of the people.  And imagine, some of them even call themselves Democrats!

[Cubby]

So, lets see..

The State Supreme Court can amend the constitution by intentionally, willfully and maliciously misinterpreting the constution, but the people do not have the right to amend the state Constitution?

Bizarre!

Oh, and BTW, I don't think that there will be sufficent votes in the legislature to allow the people to vote on this issue.

Isn't it interesting that lefties will go to any lengths to prevent a vote of the people.  And imagine, some of them even call themselves Democrats!

Civil Rights should never be put up for a popular vote, thats tyranny of the majority.

[Emsworth]

Civil Rights should never be put up for a popular vote, thats tyranny of the majority.

Marriage is not a right.

[opebo]

Civil Rights should never be put up for a popular vote, thats tyranny of the majority.

Marriage is not a right.

In your opinion, Emsworth, which doesn't matter.  The opinion of the courts is what matters here.   

In any case Pym is correct - ideally one would prefer that one's civil rights not be subject to the malicious whims of the prude majority.

[WalterMitty]

kudos to GLAD!

[John Dibble]

Civil Rights should never be put up for a popular vote, thats tyranny of the majority.

Marriage is not a right.

In your opinion, Emsworth, which doesn't matter.  The opinion of the courts is what matters here.   

In any case Pym is correct - ideally one would prefer that one's civil rights not be subject to the malicious whims of the prude majority.

Yes, they should be subject to the majority of a bunch of unelected judges, like the ones who ruled by majority that California can't legalize medicinal marijuana. Courts can be just as bad, you know.

[Blue Rectangle]

This is a proposed amendment to the state constitution, but the plaintiffs claim that it cannot overturn a court ruling.

WTF?

[opebo]

Yes, they should be subject to the majority of a bunch of unelected judges, like the ones who ruled by majority that California can't legalize medicinal marijuana. Courts can be just as bad, you know.

Overall the courts have been much less bad than the voters, Dibble.  I'll take the courts, thanks.