(14 Massachusetts) Legislators counter-sue (anti-gay) marriage group

[Ian David]

Legislators countersue marriage group

December 30, 2006

BOSTON

Lawmakers targeted in a $5 million federal lawsuit by an anti gay marriage group shot back yesterday, giving the group 21 days to withdraw the suit on the grounds that it is "frivolous." The lawsuit, filed earlier this month in US District Court by VoteOnMarriage.org , asserts that the 109 lawmakers who voted last month to recess a joint constitutional convention instead of voting on a proposed constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage violated the supporters' rights to free speech, to petition the government, and due process under the law.

The lawsuit seeks $500,000 from the lawmakers for the cost of the group's legal battles and another $5 million in punitive damages. The damages would be split 109 ways and lawmakers would be held personally liable.

Yesterday, 14 of the lawmakers sent a countersuit to VoteOnMarriage.org asking it to withdraw the lawsuit.

If the group refuses, the countersuit, which argues that lawmakers are immune from liability for legislative actions, is automatically filed with the court. Lawmakers are scheduled to take up the amendment again when they gather in a joint session on Tuesday, the last day of their session. (AP)

More:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/12/30/legislators_countersue_marriage_group/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+City%2FRegion+News

[Ian David]

1. More details: Pro-Gay Marriage Lawmakers Ask Lawsuit Be Found "Frivolous"

On Friday, 14 of the lawmakers sent a countersuit to VoteOnMarriage.org asking them to withdraw the lawsuit. If the group refuses, the countersuit is automatically filed with the court.

In the countersuit, the lawmakers fault the original lawsuit saying it tries to pursue them both as officials and as private citizens.

"The Complaint is, however, completely bereft of any allegations which would support the Plaintiffs' assertion that the conduct of the defendants at issue was undertaken in defendants' "individual" capacity, as opposed to their official capacity," the countersuit reads.

The countersuit also argues that "members of the Massachusetts Legislature are absolutely immune from liability ... for actions taken in the 'sphere of legislative activity."'

More:
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/10636159/detail.html

[Ian David]

2. More detail: MassEquality Applauds Legislators for Fighting Back Against Frivolous Federal Lawsuit

Press Release

MassEquality Applauds Legislators for Fighting Back Against Frivolous Federal Lawsuit

Legislators Seek Sanctions Against Voteonmarriage.org

BOSTON, Dec. 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- MassEquality applauds the
action by fourteen Massachusetts legislators who today issued a motion for
sanctions against VoteOnMarriage.org, its leaders, and attorneys. The
motion was filed in response to VoteOnMarriage.org's lawsuit in federal
court against the 109 legislators who voted to recess November's
Constitutional Convention.

On today's filing, MassEquality Campaign Director Marc Solomon said,
"This federal lawsuit is completely without merit and was designed solely
to intimidate legislators. The true nature of this lawsuit was made
apparent this week when papers were served to legislators at their homes as
they and their families celebrated the holidays."

"It's a well-settled matter of law that legislators acting in a
legislative capacity are immune from the types of claims brought by our
opponents. We're thrilled that legislators are fighting back against these
intimidation tactics by seeking to have this case dismissed and sanctions
levied against Voteonmarriage.org, its leaders and attorneys."


Background

On December 13, Voteonmarriage.org sued in U.S. District Court the 109
Massachusetts legislators who voted on November 9, 2006, to recess a
Constitutional Convention without voting on a proposed constitutional
amendment banning same-sex marriage. In their lawsuit, Voteonmarriage.org
claims that the legislators' actions on November 9 violated plaintiff's
rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution. The Voteonmarriage.org lawsuit seeks compensatory and
punitive damages from the legislators in the amount of $5 million, as well
as declaratory and injunctive relief.

The motion issued today by fourteen legislators claims that
Voteonmarriage.org and the other plaintiffs in this case have brought a
baseless and frivolous lawsuit in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure section 11(b). Following procedure, attorneys representing the
legislators forwarded the motion to the plaintiffs, who have 21 days to
withdraw their pleading. If they do not do so, the legislators will file
the motion in federal court.

The fourteen legislators bringing this motion for sanctions are:

Senator Jarrett Barrios (D- Cambridge)
Representative Ruth Balser (D- Brookline)
Representative Garrett Bradley (D- Hingham)
Representative Michael Festa (D- Melrose)
Representative Jay Kaufman (D- Lexington)
Representative John Keenan (D- Salem)
Representative Barbara L'Italien (D- Andover)
Representative Elizabeth Malia (D- Jamaica Plain)
Representative Anne Paulsen (D- Belmont)
Representative Kathi-Anne Reinstein (D- Revere)
Representative Carl Sciortino (D- Medford)
Representative Frank Smizik (D- Brookline)
Representative David Torrisi (D- North Andover)
Representative Cleon Turner (D- Dennis)

MassEquality was founded as a coalition dedicated to protecting the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision on marriage equality and to defeating any discriminatory amendment to the Massachusetts state constitution.

Contact: Marc Solomon
Campaign Director

[LeftCoast]

3. Ha...a taste of their own medicine!

I wonder what the penalties are for filing frivolous lawsuits?

[Chipper Chat]

4. I hope it bankrupts several churches.

Maybe Stonewall is finally rubbing in.

[DarkTirade]

5. It's about time we started fighting back.

Let them know that their dirty tricks won't work... and will cost them.
Equal rights mean equal rights. Period.

[suston96]

6. A little more background....

This was posted elsewhere a few days ago on DU.....

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2006/12/sjc_refuses_to_1.html

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

SJC refuses to force lawmakers to vote on gay marriage ban
By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff, and Andrew Ryan, Globe Correspondent

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that it had no authority to order the Legislature to vote on a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage, but the justices gave Governor Mitt Romney a symbolic victory by scolding lawmakers for shirking "their lawful obligations."

We take separation of powers very seriously in Massachusetts:

From the Massachusetts Constitution (1780) Declaration of Rights:

"Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men."