Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Fantasyland in Massachusetts

There are so many fantasies in this story in the Boston Globe ("Bid seen weakening to ban gay marriage"1-18-05), it's hard to know where to begin.

First of all, does anyone think our legislature is serious about their amendment banning same-sex "marriage" ...
-when the Senate President, Travaglini, attends same-sex "weddings"?
-when the new Speaker of the House, DiMasi, is a huge, open supporter of same-sex "marriage"?
-when they unconstitutionally threw out the citizens' referendum in 2002 which would have banned same-sex "marriage"?
-when they know that the amendment's allowing civil unions will certainly kill it if it did go to the voters?

Does the legislature really believe that any amendment banning same-sex marriage will withstand review by our current Supreme Judicial Court? The four SJC justices made it very clear that they are the supreme arbiters, that same-sex "marriage" is legal, and that civil unions fall short -- end of argument!

So why this charade? For sure, the legislators are playing the citizens of this state for fools, stringing them along, making it look like they're trying to do something about this mess. (And they know that the majority in this state do NOT want same-sex "marriage".)

Equally if not more disturbing, why is the Massachusetts Family Institute wasting precious time, energy, and resources on a new citizens' petition to ban same-sex "marriage" and civil unions? Don't they understand that the same rogue Court is sitting, just waiting to overturn any such law? Don't they get it -- that the legislature would likely repeat their action of 2002, and not even allow the petition to come to a vote on the floor, much less go to the voters?*

It's the JUDGES, stupid! REMOVE the SJC 4!

*from the Globe article:
The final outcome is far from clear, particularly if eight social conservatives [legislators] who also oppose the amendment because it creates a system of civil unions for gay couples continue to vote against the measure.
So far, that bloc of conservatives is showing no signs of moving toward supporting the amendment and would like to hold out for a strict constitutional ban on marriage with no references to civil unions. Crews [former president of the Mass. Family Institute], while predicting the amendment's likely demise, showed no signs that he would work to save it. "If that happens, I'm not going to cry about that," Crews said.
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said the big question will be whether all social conservatives will continue to oppose the amendment or will move to support it. "It's a toss up right now," he said of the vote count.
He said the institute is trying to decide whether to hope for the amendment's defeat and filed [sic] a citizens petition for an amendment that would ban gay marriage and not create a system of civil unions. "That is something that is still in the decision mode," he said.