(Massachusetts) Court won't force gay marriage vote

Court Won't Force Gay Marriage Vote
By JAY LINDSAY 12.27.06, 10:16 AM ET

The state's highest court on Wednesday said it had no authority to force lawmakers to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Opponents of same-sex marriage who were angered that lawmakers failed to act on the proposed amendment during a joint session in November had sued, asking the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to clarify if the state constitution required lawmakers to vote.

"Those members who now seek to avoid their lawful obligations, by a vote to recess without a roll call vote by yeas and nays on the merits of the initiative amendment (or by other procedural vote of similar consequence), ultimately will have to answer to the people who elected them," the court said in its 11-page ruling.

More:
http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/12/27/ap3283774.html

Der Mittenfuhrer loses again!

See also:
<snip>

In its ruling, the Supreme Judicial Court wrote: "Beyond resorting to aspirational language that relies on the presumptive good faith of elected representatives, there is no presently articulated judicial remedy for the Legislature's indifference to, or defiance of, its constitutional duties."

<snip>

Gay marriage opponents, including Gov. Mitt Romney, filed suit, arguing that the people's will was being thwarted and that lawmakers were violating their right to petition for a constitutional amendment.

<snip>

A spokesman for Romney, who was on vacation, had no immediate comment Wednesday.

More:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2754075

I think it would have indeed been just that.

that would have given all citizens in Massachusetts a Constitutional right to Reproductive Choice.

SJC judges who know something about their constitutional duties are a beautiful thing. :)

Now you right-wing fucktards, go save your own families.

before you get another kick in the ass.

Wow -- You couldn't have seen *THAT* one coming! :sarcasm:

Generally speaking, with the exception of SCotUS in Bush
v Gore, one branch of the government doesn't tell another
branch how to run its business, and the courts have been
especially careful in this area.

Tesha

"Gov. Mitt Romney, filed suit, arguing that the people's will was being thwarted..."


Apparently he or the reporter, considers gays to be something less than people....

astounding bigotry.

he has a chance to be the conservative alternative to Giulliani and McCain. From what I've read over on the freeptards board, he hasn't got a shot in hell. The fundies have two things to hate, his Massachusetts connection (including having to lie to liberals to get elected) and his Mormonism, which they consider a dangerous cult.

When I glanced at it I assumed that meant that the legislature would have to vote on the proposed amendment. The Globe's coverage of this issue has been dreadful.

same-sex marriage issue. Overall, that is.

Why do I say that?

Because the BosGlobe has "come out" (pun intended) in favor of same-sex marriage as a legal civil rights issue as well as not placing discrimination into our Massachusetts constitution. The BosGlobe has stood firm on this issue.

However, the BosGlobe is a newspaper and as such attempts to do the "journalism" stuff in its non-editorial pages. Meaning that it should be objective in its non-editorial pages even if its editorial pages of opinion stand firmly in favor of same-sex marriage.

The trade-off is stupid articles like today's attempt at over-stating (and frankly confusing) the Supreme Judicial Court's order. An order which indicated that

(1) yes, Romney and his rightwingnut lackeys (who want their religion into our laws) were correct in that the Massachusetts constitution mandates an up or down vote on the merits of this ballot initiative in a Constitutional Convention. The legislature has refused to do so, instead it has voted to recess;

(2) the SJC then said that it lacks legal authority (power) to force the state legislature to this mandated constitutional vote; and

(3) then the SJC (due to #2 above) dismissed the lawsuit brought by Mitt Romney and his religious rightwing friends.

Okay?

All of which gives Romney and his religion-into-law friends a bully pulpit to yell that they were correct. Which may, in turn, if Romney yells long and hard enough, give some of our state legislators a weak back-bone. Meaning that they may -- repeat may -- on January 2, 2007, vote an up or down vote on the merits on this ballot initiative as mandated by our state constitution as opined today by the SJC.

Got all this? Okay. It is confusing!

_______________________

edited to add: this article that you cite is an AP article and not written by the BosGlobe . . . AP isn't known for its clear, concise writing, particularly in legal matters.

SJC = (Massachusetts) Supreme Judicial Court (the highest state court in Massachusetts)

.

being all... inactive...
:sarcasm:

It furthers the right cause.

You fucking lame-duck ASSHOLE :thumbsdown:

if only for the reason that the people and legislators in this state are so completely fed up with Mittens and his BS. We have gay marriage here. The world hasnt come to an end. Mass STILL has the lowest divorce rate in the country. Frankly people here just don't give it a whole lot of thought anymore.

More and more I feel as though a good majority of the country is foreign to me. All these idiots bitching about "mass liberals" need to take a good look back in history, because the blood of Minutemen still flows through the veins of the people here. Without our ancestors there would BE no United States. If they continue to try and push tyranny on the people they will get a fight.

GRRR! I hate Mitt.

As for him being on vacation.....big fucking surprise there. He is rarely in Mass except the occassional visit to remind us how little he thinks of those he is supposedly paid to serve.