No ruling on gay unions

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to the only state that allows gay marriages, declining to hear an appeal aimed at overturning the Massachusetts law that prompted a national debate on the legality and morality of same-sex unions.

The decision will have no impact on the expected legal battle in Utah over a newly passed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, observers said.

Monday's decision ended the legal fight over a 4-3 Massachusetts high court ruling last November giving gay couples the right to marry. But both sides say the Supreme Court's unwillingness to intervene means there will be more fights in courts and legislatures around the country.

President Bush has promised to make passage of an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment a priority in his second term.

"Activist judges are seeking to redefine marriage for the rest of society, and the people's voice is not being heard in this process," said presidential spokesman Scott McClellan. "That's why the president is committed to moving forward with Congress on a constitutional amendment that would protect the sanctity of marriage."

Lambda and other gay-rights groups were heartened that the Supreme Court let the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stand. In the past year, at least 3,000 gay Massachusetts couples have wed.

"The bottom line is nobody is being harmed by the Massachusetts state law treating all couples equally," said David Buckel, Lambda's legal marriage project director.

Lambda currently is suing in four states — California, New Jersey, New York and Washington — on behalf of same-sex couples seeking marriage.

The high court's decision not to hear the Massachusetts case is expected to have little impact in Utah, where voters last month overwhelmingly endorsed a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. A formal challenge to Amendment 3 is expected, but opponents have said they'll wait to see what happens in lawsuits in other states.

Attorney Monte Stewart, co-chairman of Utahns for a Better Tomorrow, which supported the amendment, said an evaluation of the Massachusetts ruling would have been a poor test case for Utah's amendment and others like it.

"We understand the frustration of the folks in Massachusetts, but the theory they pursued in federal court . . . was really extraordinarily novel," Stewart said. "It didn't test the issue directly."