Brewer's Tavern |
|
|
No one seems to be writing opinion pieces quite the way I would, so I decided to do it myself. The name? Taverns are places where one goes to discuss the interesting events and things in the world, so this is my tavern. I will offer my views on politics, economics, and whatever else strikes my fancy.
Archives
Links
Email Me Send e-mail to editor Sister Site Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - over Bright Creature Best Blogs Talking Points Memo CalPundit Talkleft The Daily Howler 
|
Monday, November 29, 2004
US Supreme Court on Gay Marriage in Mass.This is interesting. From Associated Press by way of Yahoo News: WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a dispute over gay marriages, rejecting a challenge to the nation's only law sanctioning such unions. Justices had been asked by conservative groups to overturn the year-old decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage. They declined, without comment. The lawsuit was filed by the Florida-based Liberty Counsel on behalf of Robert Largess, the vice president of the Catholic Action League, and 11 state lawmakers. The Liberty Counsel had argued that the decision to legalize gay marriages was a usurpation of the Republican form of government guaranteed to Americans in the US Constitution. Merita Hopkins, a city attorney in Boston, had told justices in court papers that the people who filed the suit have not shown they suffered an injury and could not bring a challenge to the Supreme Court. "Deeply felt interest in the outcome of a case does not constitute an actual injury," she said. Since the Massachusetts Supreme Court made their decision based entirely on the Massachusetts State Constitution, the decision by the US Supreme Court is an acknowledgement that they have no jurisdiction in the issue. Clearly that implies that the Liberty Counsel argument was not persuasive. The statement by Merita Hopkins is, to me, quite persuasive. Who suffers an injury if Gay Marriage is recognized by the state? For all the panicky noise from right-wing preachers, no one has ever attempted to answer that question. The only answer that I can see is that the preachers themselves are hurt because the state is claiming that the doctrine they are spouting has no support. If anyone else is hurt (fear is not being hurt.) I can’t find them. That makes the entire opposition to Gay Marriage nothing more than a cynical effort to use people’s fears to manipulate their vote. The Court decision itself does not support a conclusion that the Supreme Court agrees with Merita Hopkins, except to the extent that they are saying they have decided that they do not have jurisdiction in the decision. Essentially they said that the Liberty Counsel’s argument was unpersuasive and there is no federal issue. At least, that is my opinion of what it says. |
Comments:
Post a Comment
|