Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
Again, lower courts held that the law did allow for restricting marriage to something between a man and a woman. The lower courts also probably thought they were acting within the law.
Hopefully one of these new state amendments actually gets before the US Supreme Court, and have the issued settled once and for all (at least until there is a fundamental shift in the court's makeup).
|
Touché. However, it is important to keep in mind that the lower courts are courts of limited power. They are bound in their decisions to reach verdicts that are compatible with the long precedent laid down before be higher courts and the legislature. In this particular case the courts were asked to rule on a question of law that had not been directly addressed by the Massachusetts Courts before. Therefore, the lower courts are expected to give deference to the custom interpretation(s) given to the law by other governmental agencies. It is not often when a lower court or even an appellate court will risk itself to overturn this precedent. Remember, they have to run for election too. They often leave the dirty work to the Supreme Court, as in this case. The Supreme Court (SC)reviewed the custom interpretation of the marriage laws and determined that this interpretation was in conflict with the rights guaranteed to citizens of Massachusetts by their State Constitution (It may be amazing for some to learn that most of our rights are protected by state constitutions rather then the Federal Constitution. Take for instance California, which has the largest constitution in the world. If you are a citizen of California you have a constitutionally protected right to fish. Try finding that in the Federal Constitution. Point being, your rights may vary from state to state. Scary ain’t it?) The SC found in their ruling that, as a matter of law, the common interpretation given to the Massachusetts marriage statute was in violation of the Massachusetts Constitution’s guarantees of equality before the law. In making this ruling the SP held open the door for the Massachusetts legislature or the people of Massachusetts to amend the State Constitution to specifically define marriage in the common interpretation. Seeing that this ruling was likely to duplicate itself in other states, 11 of these states took the hint, drafted constitutional amendments to change their constitutions to reflect the common interpretation of marriage and as such preempted similar rulings in their own SC. My point is, this entire process and the preemptive action taken in these 11 states is much more nuance then the talking heads and political pundits would have one believe.