Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly denied Gov. Mitt Romney’s written request to petition the Supreme Judicial Court to delay its same-sex marriage decision and said at a press conference on Tuesday that the governor has no legal argument.
After the Legislature voted on Monday to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage but create civil unions, Romney requested that Reilly seek a stay from the court until the amendment process was complete. He sought the stay in order to avoid legal confusion over the status of same-sex couples who may wed after May 17 – the date the SJC said its decision will take effect – but before the amendment could be ratified by voters in November 2006.
On Tuesday, Romney asked Reilly to appoint a special assistant attorney general to pursue the stay, but that request was also denied.
A stay would “avoid the question of whether the marriages, or the related rights, of the same-sex couples will become invalid,” Romney wrote to the attorney general. “The legal status of these couples, both within and outside of the commonwealth, would create questions of first-impression that would not be easily resolved.”
Reilly disagreed with Romney’s stance and said his agenda was politically motivated.
“I was struck by the fact that the letter did not set forth one single legal argument,” Reilly said in a press conference after the governor made his formal request. “The arguments the governor makes are political arguments.”
Reilly, a Democrat who many believe may run against Romney in 2006, is also against gay marriage but said the court has made its decision clear by twice ruling in favor of gay marriage.
“Whether the governor likes it or not, whether I agree with the decision or not, the plaintiffs have won their case and they are entitled to the rights that they have won, and I will not stand in their way,” Reilly said. “My job is to enforce the law and I will do that.”
But Romney said same-sex marriage is “a matter of critical importance” that should be decided by the people.
“Allowing time for the constitutional amendment process to run its course simply respects the fact that all power derives from the people in a democracy,” Romney said. “Without a stay, the public would perceive the unilateral implementation of the Goodridge decision [the SJC ruling allowing same-sex marriage] as a circumvention of the amendment process, and ultimately as the subversion of democracy.”
The amendment the Legislature passed Monday must be passed again in the 2005-2006 legislative session. If approved a second time, Massachusetts voters would consider the proposal in a ballot question in November 2006.
Traditional marriage supporters lambasted Reilly’s refusal to take up the case and said it deserves more attention than he has given it.
“We certainly would’ve hoped that Attorney General Reilly would have found a way to avoid the confusion that will undoubtedly occur without a stay,” said Ray McNulty, spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage, a group against both gay marriage and civil unions. He added that the confusion resulting from licenses being issued and then possibly rescinded must be dealt with now rather than later.
But same-sex marriage supporters said that Romney is making excuses to avoid the law.
“For him to continue this volley of suggesting that there will be chaos afoot is only feeding some of the cities and local town clerks who are looking for an out, to get away from abiding by the law,” Sen. Dianne Wilkerson (D-Boston) told thebostonchannel.com.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
