No surprise here - Supremes stay out of Mass. gay-marriage fight

[edschweppe]

The US Supreme Court has declined to overturn last year's Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling giving gay Bay State couples the right to marry. It's not terribly surprising that the Supreme Court stayed out of this; the plaintiffs were using the legal theory that "activist Massachusetts judges had violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government." From what I've read, that particular claim almost always goes nowhere fast (especially when raised by private citizens).

Odds are, though, that more cases around this issue will wend their way Washington-ward. Which makes this Clarence Thomas quote one to remember:

It seems to me that the power to regulate 'commerce' can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals, throughout the 50 States.

Now, will Thomas remember that opinion when the first gay marriage case reaches the top court?

(Quote from Thomas' concurring opinion in U.S. v. Lopez, courtesy of the SCOTUSBlog at http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/archive/2004_11_28_SCOTUSblog.cfm#110177040776166593 )

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Well, in Loving vs Virginia, the feds effectively did regulate marriage by striking down state laws banning interracial marriage.

However the quote can cut both ways. It can be used to argue against the court striking the MA ruling allowing same sex marriage. It can also be used to argue against the court striking down state bans on same sex marriage.

But yes, its only the beginning of the court fights. Expect legal challenges to most if not all of the new state ammendments against marriage; especially the most strictly worded ones.

There is also a custody dispute from a civil union breakup which has opposing court rulings in 2 different states. From those grounds spring the federal cases for relationship recognition.