BOSTON, MA - Today, the First Circuit Court of Appeals declined to issue an order stopping same-sex marriages in Massachusetts. The lawsuit was brought by Liberty Counsel on behalf of Robert Largess, a Massachusetts citizen, and eleven Massachusetts legislators. Mr. Largess and the legislators are represented by Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel for Liberty Counsel.

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 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 went 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 Judicial Court overstepped its authority 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. Because the Goodridge case does not fit within these categories, the Court is without power to hear the case. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial 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 Judicial 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.

In response to the ruling Staver said, “We will continue to press this case to the United States Supreme Court to ensure that the separation of powers principle is upheld in Massachusetts. This case is vitally important - the republican representative form of government must be restored so the people can have a chance to define marriage instead of having the decision foisted upon them by the Massachusetts Judiciary. The battle over same-sex marriage is far from over. In fact, it is just beginning. The circumstances in Massachusetts underscore the need for a federal constitutional amendment to preserve marriage between one man and one woman.”