Another skirmish in the seemingly never-ending gay marriage war was fought today before the Supreme Judicial Court, although it contained little of the excitement of earlier developments. In fact, the oral arguments, which Bostonist attended for the benefit of our dear readers, were unimpressive at best and embarassing at worst.
This time around, C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League, is trying to get the SJC to stop any further gay marriages during the pendency of the constitutional amendment process (which is to say, at least until 2006). He first appealed to a single justice of the high court, who denied his request, then pressed on to the full court. He had two lawyers to make his point today, and neither of them seemed to persuade the Justices - or Bostonist - even a little bit.
First up for Doyle was the delightfully named Chester Darling, who is something of a darling in Massachusetts anti-gay circles. Although Mr. Darling successfully convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to let organizers of a St. Patrick's Day parade in Boston ban gay pride groups, he seemed on much shakier ground with today's case. His presentation to the court was rambling and grumpy, and seemed to amount to a general expression of his displeasure with the idea of gay marriage (on two occasions he told the court that the Goodridge decision "reversed 4,000 years of history," making Bostonist wonder: Why only 4,000 years? Did ancient Egypt actually sanction gay marriage?). He described the legislature as "weak and ineffective," then grumbled under his breath, "except when it comes to taxes." When one of the Justices asked him whether a petition to amend the constitution to repeal drug laws would require the courts to stop enforcing those laws (since Doyle is advocating the same course of action for marriage laws), Darling responded, cryptically, that the judge's question missed the point because "everyone knows drug laws are unreasonable."
Next up was Robert Muise, who was more polished and coherent than Darling and looked remarkably like a younger Mitt Romney. Muise, who works for the conservative Thomas More Law Center, pressed the argument that if a constitutional amendment is eventually passed, it might undo the validity of any gay marriages performed now, which would create some sort of crippling instability for the whole state. It was in everyone's best interest, he said, to stop the marriages. This did not seem to convince Justice Sosman, one of the dissenters in the original Goodridge decision, who gave Muise some pretty sharp questions. She kept asking him why the court should overturn the single justice's ruling, and all Muise could say was that the gay marriage issue should get special treatment because it is really super-duper important. (Bostonist is paraphrasing, of course, but that was the gist of it.)
As if to underline the weakness of Doyle's case, the attorney for Goodridge didn't bother to make any oral argument, and when she asked the judges if they had any questions, they were silent. That's never a good sign for the other side.
Doyle had previously said that he didn't even expect the court to take his appeal, and gay-rights advocates have expressed confidence they'll win this one. Putting aside our (perhaps too obvious) personal opinions on the matter, Bostonist doubts the SJC will put the brakes on gay marriage because of this case. So call the caterers, start picking out china patterns, and make sure to invite us.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
