Supreme Court sidesteps gay marriage issue

Well, on one hand, this isn't exactly helping conservatives and fundementalists in their quest to make everyone have freedom on their (religious-based) terms. That the Supreme Court refused to hear the case from an anti-gay organization instills a bit of hope that our government isn't totally succumbing to religious doctrines and ideals. I think we'd have more to worry about if a greivence was brought to the Supreme Court on the subject of laws that were passed this past elections that banned gay marriages was ignored rather than a grievence about a ruling that they should be allowed.

On the other hand, this would've been an even more devestating blow to fundementalists if they had heard the case and then ruled against it anyway. Would've caused a floodgate of controversy, but boy, that victory would be sweet.

Of course you don't care - you're all for denying rights to homosexuals.

Well, the Court is essentially saying, "It's a state issue." When the Supreme Court refuses to hear an appeal, it is, in a sense, endorsing the ruling of the lower court, which apparently ruled that the Massachusetts Supreme Court had the power to rule the way they did. The issue of marriage is almost exclusively a state issue. Unless the case involves a bigger federal issue like civil rights (which this one arguably does - the Loving v. Virginia case is a good example of this), the Supreme Court rightly steps back and defers to the state courts. I think that the Court's refusal to hear this case is based on the right of the individual states to decide state issues.

Also, there appears to be an issue of standing (i.e., the right of the plaintiff to bring the suit). The people who initiated this lawsuit had apparently not been damaged and therefore were not able to properly bring this lawsuit at all. Had the Supreme Court heard the case, they would first have to address the issue of standing and would likely rule just on that, leaving the issue of gay marriage untouched. If they are ever going to decide the issue of gay marriage, it will most likely have to be a case involving a federal issue and definitely one where the plaintiff has clear standing to sue.

You're a 'I'll pay lip service to the issue to save face, but when it comes down to it, I'd rather do nothing' type of guy.

I love how they claim that gays having the same rights as everyone else is Tyranny.

To be fair, by using the word "tyranny", they are referring to the means, not the ends. Their argument is that it subverts the democratic process and the Constitution when judges create new legislation from the bench, usurping the power of the legislative branch. Now, if a ballot initiative in Massachusetts banning gay marriage is defeated by the vote of the people and they still cry "tyranny", then they are just stupid.

They didn't make new laws, they just enforced the existing laws. Thats what I don't understand. Its the court's job to interpret law and set precedent. And thats what it did.

That IS a point; however, if the law makes no assertion as to the male/female nature of marriage (and it may not in Mass - it's one of the oldest states and the law may have been written without any conception of same-sex marriage), the lower court's ruling could more likely be interpreted as controversial yet legitimate.

Also what Oerwinde said - letting people who want to get married do so equates "tyranny"? Good lord....

I honestly think it's more along the lines of "We know there is absolutely no legal grounds for banning gay marriage, so we'll leave the issue alone, because that's the next best thing."

Also, saying "The government doesn't do what we want it to do!" does not neccessarily imply a tyranny. Unless, of course, you consider the Civil Rights movement tyrannical.

And finally, Maus, how does this constitute a state's rights issue? Does the Constitution not guarantee equal protection?