|
|
|
|
May 10, 2004 Liberty Counsel Files Federal Lawsuit to Stop Same-Sex Marriages in Massachusetts BOSTON, MA - Today, Liberty Counsel filed a federal lawsuit against the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and each of the City and Town Clerks in Massachusetts. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Largess, a Boston citizen and Vice-President of the Catholic Action League. The lawsuit asks the federal court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order to stop the enforcement of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ruling establishing same-sex marriage and to stop the issuance and recording of marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples. The decision allowing same-sex marriage is scheduled to go into effect next Monday, May 17, 2004. Joining Liberty Counsel in the lawsuit are the Citizens for the Preservation of Constitutional Rights, The Thomas More Law Center and the AFA Center for Law & Policy. On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its opinion in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. The decision redefined marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry in Massachusetts, something that had never been done before in the history of marriage. The Court cavalierly noted in the opinion that, "We are mindful that our decision marks a change in the history of our marriage law." The Court stayed its decision for 180 days to allow the Massachusetts Legislature time to respond to the decision. The Legislature responded by passing an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman only. Under Massachusetts law, the earliest the voters can vote to approve the amendment is 2006. In the meantime, the decision goes into effect Monday, May 17. The lawsuit argues that the Court's decision violates Article 4, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, which is called the Guarantee Clause. That Clause guarantees that every State in the Union will have a Republican Form of Government. The Guarantee Clause places the federal government in the position of a referee over the States to ensure that the States follow a Republican form of government. The Guarantee Clause was a requirement for States to be admitted into the Union. The Clause is violated in this case because the Massachusetts Supreme Court usurped the power of the Legislature and the Governor in hearing the Goodridge case and in redefining marriage. The Massachusetts Constitution clearly gives the authority to hear all marriage cases to the Governor and the Legislature, not the Courts. Through the years, the Legislature has transferred a limited amount of that power to the Courts, but only to hear cases involving divorce, annulment, affirmation and alimony. If the marriage case does not fit within these categories, the Court is without power to hear the case. In 1999, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down Boston's attempt to redefine the word "family" to include same-sex couples. The Massachusetts Supreme Court violated the principle of separation of powers when it redefined marriage to include same-sex couples. There is nothing more basic to a Republican form of government than the principle of separation of powers. When that is violated, as the Massachusetts Supreme Court did in this case, the federal government is obligated to step in to ensure that the citizens' right to have a Republican form of government in their state is protected. Mat Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, stated, "The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court usurped the power of the Governor and the Legislature when it impermissibly redefined marriage to include same-sex couples." Staver continued, "The federal courts are obligated to step in to ensure that Massachusetts is following the basic principle of separation of powers that is vital to our very system of law and government." Staver concluded, "When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court usurped the power of the Legislature by reformulating the definition of marriage, it violated the federal constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of government. We are confident that the federal courts will act to restrain this abuse of power by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court." An Inside Look at the Same-Sex Marriage Battle I left Washington, D.C. last Wednesday after meetings on the federal marriage amendment, and headed to Liberty University School of Law in Lynchburg. Two other Liberty Counsel attorneys met me there at the law school where we researched and drafted pleading for the case we filed today in Massachussets. At the same time, the rest of our attorneys in Orlando also drafted pleadings and coordinated efforts with the Citizens for the Preservation of Constitutional Rights, the Thomas More Law Center and the AFA Center for Law & Policy. I arrived back in Orlando at 2:00 Sunday afternoon, dashed home, repacked, grabbed the documents to be filed in court today, and headed back to the airport. I caught a 7:30 p.m. flight to Boston for a meeting with our client and checked into the hotel by midnight -- just in time for a few hours of rest before appearing in court this morning. These are exciting times! I am truly blessed to be a part of the battle to preserve traditional marriage. New York Times Features Liberty Counsel Sunday's edition of the New York Times features an objectively written story on Liberty Counsel entitled, "Using the Courts to Wage a War on Gay Marriage." To read the article online you must sign up for free access. Liberty Counsel, headquartered in Orlando, Florida, is a national public interest law firm dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family. On the campus of Liberty University School of Law in Lynchburg, Virginia, Liberty Counsel’s Center for Constitutional Litigation and Policy trains attorneys, law students, policy-makers, legislators, clergy and world leaders in constitutional principles and government policies. Mathew
D. Staver, Esq. Please forward this email to your entire address book. We respect your privacy and will not share your contact information with others. Restoring
the culture one case at a time by advancing religious freedom, the sanctity
of human life | |
