Massachusetts high court rules unanimously in favor of voters
Mass. Supreme Judicial Court rejects challenge to marriage amendment defended by ADF attorneysBOSTON — In a victory for the rule of law and the voter initiative process, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court today unanimously shut down a legal challenge to a proposed state constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman. The court ruled that the initiative does not violate the state constitutional prohibition on improper use of the initiative process to intervene in a court case to reverse the verdict. Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund defended the proposed amendment on behalf of the citizen group working for a popular vote on the proposed marriage amendment.
“Voters should have a voice when it comes to protecting the true definition of marriage. Today’s ruling is a victory for them. The highest court in the commonwealth of Massachusetts has ruled according to the law and rejected an extreme legal argument pushed by activists,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence, who argued before the court in May in defense of the proposed amendment.
The legal issues in the case, Schulman v. Reilly, concerned Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution, which prohibits the voters from using the initiative process to reverse judicial decisions but allows them to change the rule of law relied upon by the court in future cases.
In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that the Massachusetts Constitution requires the commonwealth to allow “marriage” between persons of the same sex. A Cambridge woman filed a lawsuit claiming that the proposed amendment is invalid on the grounds that it violates Article 48 because it “reverses” the Goodridge decision. The high court today rejected her arguments and ruled in favor of the voter initiative.
“The provision in Article 48 was designed to prevent people from abusing the initiative process. In other words, citizens cannot use the initiative process to convert the voters into a one-time super-appellate court and overturn a state supreme court decision they don’t like,” said Lorence. “However, that is different from what the citizens are doing here. The court ruled today that the people can change the underlying provision of the constitution used by a court to render a controversial decision, such as Goodridge. The people can pass an initiative amending their state constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. The courts would use that amendment to decide any future cases involving the definition of marriage.”
The proposed amendment defining marriage now goes to a joint session of the Massachusetts Legislature meeting July 12. If 25 percent of the lawmakers approve the amendment this year and in the next legislative session, the voters of Massachusetts will vote whether to add the provision to the state constitution in a later election, possibly as early as 2008.
Today’s ruling in Schulman v. Reilly can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ReillyOpinion.pdf. The decision is the third straight victory for marriage in the last five days (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3793 and www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3792). For more information on the battle to protect marriage, visit www.domawatch.org.
ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.
