This morning, I
posted a diary about a lawsuit asking the SJC to halt same-sex marriages in Massachusetts. The suit was
not well received by the Court:
A Catholic activist's bid to persuade the state's highest court to reverse itself on gay marriage likely has failed, his lawyer said Monday after the Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments in the case.
Justices, even two who dissented on the 2003 landmark ruling, pressed activist C.J. Doyle's lawyers to prove how his rights were denied by allowing same-sex marriages, but did not question lawyers on the other side.
Chester Darling saw that as a "negative" sign for his client.
"I'm not too confident," he said after the hearing. "I had an inference from that, that it was a little negative, from our point of view."
GLAD and the Attorney General's Office were there to support keeping the law in place. Neither of them gave a statement, but both offered to answer questions the Court might have. No questions were asked of them.
Even the Justices who dissented in Goodridge were highly skeptical of this frivolous lawsuit by C.J. Doyle:
Justice Martha Sosman, who wrote the 2003 dissenting opinion, told Darling's co-counsel, Robert Muise, that unless it's proven that the single justice -- Roderick Ireland -- erred in his ruling last year, then "that's the end of it."
I can't wait to read the decision (no indication of when it will be released). I get the feeling it's going to be a hell of a smackdown.