December 01, 2004
SCOTUS Declines to Hear Gay Marriage Case
I'm not sure whether to give this one a full-fledged "bwahaha" or the more subtle, but equally disdainful, Nelsonesque "haa-haw!" I'm quite sure, though, that an "LOL" isn't what I'm going for.
I'm sure some of our regulars can clarify, but I don't believe this sets a precedent, so I'm not getting too excited. Still, a modest victory for equal rights. And as Andy points out, in this case it was the conservatives who engaged in dark, satanic JUDICIAL ACTIVISM!!!! BOOGA!!!
EDIT: In related news, if you've got a good imagination - highlight your year with the Calendario Romano 2005, adorned with a hot Catholic priest for each of God's month's. But remember, fellas - they're celibate!
It is all a matter of legal know-how.
The article contains one clear passage:
Their attorney [i.e., the anti-gay marriage activists' lawyer], Mathew Staver, said in a Supreme Court filing that the Constitution should protect the citizens of Massachusetts from their own state supreme court's usurpation of power.
Federal courts, he said, should defend people's right to live in a republican form of government free from tyranny, whether that comes at the barrel of a gun or by the decree of a court.
When someone appeals to a higher Court, he must advance concrete arguments for the petition. In such case the argumentation was too weak to be taken seriously.
The accusation of usurpation of power is not conceivable in this case. It would be equivalent to one case where a poor man and a poor woman ask for counsels paid by the State in their divorce and one Court grants it. The Court cannot be said to be tyrannical for extending the right to legal aid to parties in a civil case, even if this is not costumary in that place. In the same manner, although same sex marriage has not been contemplated in New England's consuetudinal law, the Court extended the right to marry to persons of the same sex.
The anti-gay marriage activists could have argued in a different way and won. It is a little bit like a chess game, sort of say. The right move gives you a chance, the wrong move looses the entire match.
PS:
Of course, there is no argument that is stronger than the imperative of equal protection by the law, which is the first directive of the judicial system. The equal protection principle applies to both heterosexual and homosexual persons. I do not see which argument the anti-gays could produce in such case.
You've just brought up the really important question - if you bring gays and anti-gays together, does the ensuing reaction create a black hole that tears space-time itself asunder?
Or wait, did Hawking admit he was wrong on that one, too?
That is difficult to say. Landmark decisions are acknowledged as such after years have passed. Right now, none knows what will be the result. The worldwide tendency is to enact legislation giving gays an alternative remedy, called parternship rather than marriage. In this context, the decision made by the Massachusetts Supreme Court and the laws extending marriage to same sex unions in northern Europe reflect different social realities.