Massachusetts Court
Backs Gay Marriage Ban Vote
By AP from the
NYTimes on the Web, July 10, 2006
BOSTON -- The same court that
made Massachusetts the first state to legalize same-sex marriage ruled Monday
that a proposal for a constitutional amendment that could ban future gay
marriages can move forward.
The ruling came on a lawsuit brought by gay-rights supporters who argued that
Attorney General Tom Reilly was wrong to certify the question because the
state's constitution bars any citizen-initiated amendment that seeks to reverse
a judicial ruling.
The Supreme Judicial Court rejected that argument, paving the way for the state
Legislature to take up the question during a constitutional convention
Wednesday. The question would have to be approved by two consecutive
legislative sessions before it could be placed on the 2008 ballot.
Supporters need to win the votes of 50 lawmakers -- 25 percent of the
Legislature -- in both sessions.
The same court, in a landmark 2003 ruling, cleared the way for same-sex
marriages to begin in Massachusetts in May 2004. More than 8,000 gay and
lesbian couples have married since.
The Legislature has been grappling with same-sex marriage ever since, balancing
the views of people who believe marriage should be limited to the one-man,
one-woman definition; those who believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to
have civil unions but not marriages; and those who believe all couples should be
allowed to marry regardless of sexual orientation.
In its ruling Monday, the high court said the proposed amendment -- which would
restrict marriage to between one man and one woman -- is not a reversal of its
earlier ruling legalizing gay marriage, because it would leave intact the
marriages of same-sex couples who already had wed.
''The underlying substantive law is simply changed to reflect the present
intentions of the people, and that new law will be applied thereafter in any
subsequent case or cases,'' the court said in its unanimous ruling.
But Justice John M. Greaney, in a concurring opinion, warned that approving the
amendment would clearly be discriminatory because it would remove the rights of
same-sex couples to receive the legal, social and financial benefits of
marriage.
''The only effect of a positive vote will be to make same-sex couples, and their
families, unequal to everyone else; this is discrimination in its rawest form,''
Greaney wrote.
Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which
filed the lawsuit, said the fight is not over.
''So now, obviously, the focus is going to turn to the Legislature, which has a
chance on Wednesday during the constitutional convention to do the right thing
and defeat this amendment,'' she said.
Supporters of the constitutional amendment predicted they will have enough votes
to win the first round of approval from the Legislature.
''We are comfortably in excess of 50 votes,'' said Kris Mineau, president of the
Massachusetts Family Institute.
Reilly, who certified the question, said he was pleased that the court agreed
with his decision but now said he hoped the Legislature would reject the
amendment. The Democratic candidate for governor initially opposed gay
marriage, but later became a supporter, saying same-sex unions haven't hurt
Massachusetts.
''I did my job, the court did its job; now it's up to the Legislature to do
their job,'' he said.
|
