ext_273234 ([identity profile] agnosticoracle.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] davis_square2006-12-27 04:29 pm
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry
Entry tags:

Gay Marriage Lawsuit

Remember that lawsuit posted about here week or so back that was trying to get the marriage ban on the ballot by suing legislators for not voting on it. The Supreme Judicial Court just threw out the case, marriage is still safe for gay people in Massachusetts.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2006/12/sjc_refuses_to_1.html
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[identity profile] mattlistener.livejournal.com 2006-12-27 10:24 pm (UTC)(link)
>marriage is still safe for gay people in Massachusetts.

It's not over yet -- 1/2/07 will be a big turnout day at the State House. Legislators are "expected" to adjourn without a vote, killing the amendment. However all the pressure the no-marriage-for-gays folks can bring to bear will be coming down on the legislature this week.

This would be a good time to spend any legislature-calling or sign-holding effort you may have budgeted for this issue!

[personal profile] ron_newman 2006-12-27 10:44 pm (UTC)(link)
the link is about a separate federal lawsuit which I believe has considerably less merit than the state one. (It should probably be thrown out on purely jurisdictional grounds.)

[identity profile] nalz.livejournal.com 2006-12-28 05:02 pm (UTC)(link)
The next step they're trying is to get that petition to carry over for 2007 - even though they know that many of the petition signatures were obtained by lying and lots of folks have signed affidavits to get their names removed. That's what James Galvin has said he's going to try to do, anyway.

I love how Mitt Romney who has spend over 200 days this past year *outside* of MA, is running around talking about other people not doing their jobs. I can't wait til he's gone.

[personal profile] ron_newman 2006-12-28 06:03 pm (UTC)(link)
No - if the legislature doesn't act next Tuesday, or over 75% of them vote "no", the petition is dead and the petitioners have to start all over again.

[identity profile] nalz.livejournal.com 2006-12-28 08:19 pm (UTC)(link)
Thats what James Galvin has filed a court case against - to allow them to bring the petition forward. They either haven't filed it yet, or are waiting their day in court, but that's his plan he's been talking about in the news.

[personal profile] ron_newman 2006-12-28 08:21 pm (UTC)(link)
Who is James Galvin?

[identity profile] nalz.livejournal.com 2006-12-28 08:25 pm (UTC)(link)
The Secretary of State. He unfortunately just got re-elected.

[personal profile] ron_newman 2006-12-28 08:27 pm (UTC)(link)
William Galvin is the Secretary of State, and I have heard nothing about him filing any lawsuits; it's not his job to do that.

[identity profile] nalz.livejournal.com 2006-12-28 08:42 pm (UTC)(link)
William, James, whatever. He has stated he would like the exact same petition moved forward - especially since the SJC didn't go the way they'd hoped. How he plans to do that going forward I don't know. The press release I read stated an intent to file a lawsuit.

The petition issue isn't dead, either way. I think the only thing that would "kill" this issue is a vote, which I don't think we'll see. But who knows.

[personal profile] ron_newman 2006-12-28 08:44 pm (UTC)(link)
Can you link to the press release or a news story? I'd like to read more about this.

[identity profile] nalz.livejournal.com 2006-12-28 09:16 pm (UTC)(link)
Going back to my ranting journal entry on the matter - I apparently heard it on NPR and didn't read it. My bad. I'd imagine there's info out there though.

[personal profile] ron_newman 2006-12-28 09:22 pm (UTC)(link)
It's very out of character for Galvin to take a public position on something like this. Which makes me wonder whether he is just the person the anti-marriage people will file the suit against if they don't get their way in the Legislature.

[identity profile] nalz.livejournal.com 2006-12-28 09:28 pm (UTC)(link)
They would probably sue their own churches and families if they don't get their way.
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only