Case #T6744
By Cameron Pierson, Staff Writer
6/26/2006
On Friday the Boys’ State Supreme Court heard the case on Gay Marriage. With Civil Unions going into affect only a day before, the case was slightly different. Each side presented their arguments well, giving statements that were backed up by evidence and logical thinking, but the justices did not hold back in questioning both sides. With Chief Justice Spencer Smith presiding, harsh questions were asked and not always answered.
The court reiterated many times that there were there to interpret the laws as they are now, not to make them. There were arguments concerning our constitution and the legal and constitutional definition of marriage as one man and one woman. Saying that this was just another from of discrimination, Tom Jennings, the attorney, went on to say that homosexuals are a minority and deserve equal protection under the law. When countered with the legal definition, he pointed out that he thought that the document was contradictory in that it protects form discrimination but defines marriage as one man and one woman.
Yet the other side kept reiterating that marriage is a religious institution and should not be tampered by the government. They also said that civil unions already exist and the rights are already there, while pointing out that discrimination laws (from the Constitution) do not cover “sexuality.” The power of the court was called into question several times in what it can and cannot do. The case then became, what seemed, an argument over a word. State Attorney General, Stan Galdys stated that they have the “same rights, just a different name, there is no discrimination.”
While Jennings had conveyed his hope that justice would prevail, there was a short recess while the court made its decision. In a 4-3 decision the court ruled to deny the petitioners request and shall uphold the state constitution’s definition of marriage as “between one man and one woman.”