I Don't Have Champagne Out

[mishalak]

Even I could not help but notice that the Massachusetts high court decision. Call me cynical if you like, but until gays are getting married on a regular basis I'm not ready to celebrate.

You see I've already thought of a number of ways to block this. First off pass a law that meets the exact minimums required by the court decision. Then tie up that law in Federal Court under DOMA. I would guess that it would be another few years as this makes it to the US Supreme Court. This buys opponents time to either get a local or national constitutional amendment passed. And I'm pretty sure that this move in Massachusetts will galvanize and get the anti-gay marriage groups really mobilized. I'm almost sure that they can at the very least prevent any gay marriages for two years, minimum. Then the question is what sort of support there is for a constitutional amendment.

I think it unlikely that such an amendment would pass in Massachusetts. I'm not so sure about the national level. There is also a chance that DOMA might hold up if one of the more "liberal" justices were to retire. So until it actually happens on the ground I'm just thinking of all this as talk.

Comments

[sraun]

One thing I noted - the ruling was based on the Massachusetts constitution. I don't know what it would take to modify that constitution - since one of the major points was that said constitution 'prohibits the creation of a group of second-class citizens' or something to that effect, it would take a fairly major re-write.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

It is fairly complex to amend. The proposed amendment must be passed by two successive legislatures. Then the people must pass it by a majority at the next election. But Federal Law still trumps state constitutions. So if DOMA stands it trumps the state law and state constitution. And if a Federal constitutional amendment passes the whole issue is moot until 66% of Americans change their opinions the opposite way.

[lsanderson.livejournal.com]

There is a clause in the US Constitution that requires states to recognize marriages from other states. It trumps all state constitutions. Now getting the Supreme Court to rule and interpret it, that's a whole different kettle of fish.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

Yeah but it isn't specific to marriage and I'm not sure that our present supreme court would go for it as a right that can't be taken away by a federal law. So I'm just saying that any celebration is premature at this point. We've not won anything yet; we've just gotten to step one. And we've been here before as I remember. Hawaii has such a decision and then the state's constitution was amended.

[ajournalguy.livejournal.com]

Step one? Well, so, step one. Good. The journey of 1,000 miles, and all that.
Nothing this big happens overnight. This decision does have meaning. There's more than there was before. New England is not Hawaii. It will indeed spur the opposition up, but it should also encourage the activists. Even if they overturn or invalidate the decision, things will never be the same. We've come this far, and I for one intend to win or go down fighting.