Friday, March 31, 2006

Supreme Court V. Fairness?

The Massachusetts Supreme Court (SJC) ruled yesterday, March 30, 2006, that out-of-state same-sex couples would be prohibited from marrying here in Massachusetts. The ruling stated that Governor Mitt Romney and Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly could uphold a 1913 law that prohibits Massachusetts from marrying any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, if the marriage is not considered legal in their home state.

Assistant Massachusetts State Attorney General Peter Sacks defended the 1913 Bay State law as protecting other states' rights to define marriage the way they want to define it. This principle is continuously cited by the Massachusetts high court in its milestone November 2003 ruling legalizing same-sex "marriage".
That ruling, said Sacks, defines marriage as "two willing spouses and an approving state." Since no other state allows same-sex marriage, he said, that standard is not met anywhere but Massachusetts.
Of the eight out-of-state same-sex couples who are part of the lawsuit suing for the right to get "married" in Massachusetts, five of whom were "married" in the state by city clerks who decided to not follow the 1913 law and three others who were turned down in receiving a marriage license, Attorney General Reilly agreed with the legal standing of the higher court ruling.
Reilly's thought process is that since the eight couples are not from Massachusetts - two are from Connecticut, two are from Rhode Island, and one each are from New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine and New York - they do not have the legal standing to challenge the 1913 law.
Sacks said that Massachusetts' enforcement of the law respects other states' rights. "People can come here from out of state to get married, if they're coming from a jurisdiction where it's recognized".
As Justice Spina wrote in a 38 page opinion on the ruling:
"Massachusetts can reasonably believe that non-resident same-sex couples primarily are coming to this Commonwealth to marry because they want to evade the marriage laws of their home states, and that Massachusetts should not be encouraging such evasion."
The ruling had upset gay-rights advocates who said that state officials had "dusted off" the 1913 law to discriminate against same-sex "married" couples in Massachusetts.
Hold on here a minute. Where is the discrimination coming from? What group is specifically being discriminated here? Can we all look a little harder at HOW the SJC ruled on this case. As stated, the SJC expects ALL city and town clerks to impose this law to ALL married couples. Either these married couples are of a heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It seems that Ms. Granda, the lawyer of the eight involved in the lawsuit, is forgetting this KEY point.
Why, you may ask, is Massachusetts upholding the 1913 law all of a sudden? I thought Assistant Massachusetts State Attorney General Peter Sacks said it best:
"Certainly enforcement has been increased because there's much more reason than there was before to expect violations."
I mean, if you know that your country, for example, is going to be evaded by ILLEGAL outsiders wouldn't you want to protect the integrity of your homeland? President Bush doesn't think so, but that is for another post.
One comment I can not understand came from New Yorker Amy Zimmerman who "married" her same-sex partner in Somerville, MA a couple years ago. Her comments were about the ruling.
''But we're disappointed. We're disappointed for our friends. We've been trying to teach our kids about fairness, and we don't feel this has been fair today."
I have said it once in my posts and I will say it again. Where was the fairness in denying the Commonwealth a chance to vote on their own cultural values? An UNELECTED court official decided the fate of the definition of marriage for ALL of Massachusetts. "Fairness....teach our kids..." What???!!!!!
What is it about what Americans are saying in their opposed views about same-sex "marriage" the radical homosexual community does not understand? The six states that do not have a Defense of Marriage status or amendments to prohibit same-sex "marriage" are going to fight to rid gay "marriage" in their respective states now that the SJC made its ruling.
I think Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said it best.
''People are going to take a second look, because a warning shot has been fired across their bows, a warning shot from the Marshall court that says, 'We think Massachusetts marriages might be recognized in your state."
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I mean really. How sloppy can you be with how you go about keeping the secret weapons from getting into the hands of the opposing side? Oh, that's right Margaret Marshall was the "Mastermind" behind the 2003 ruling. She is only human...well maybe not democratically human.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Get your Free Guestbook from