- Senate President Travaglini will postpone until November or December (then somehow it will just never come up before December 31). Question #20 will die at the end of the session. "It's time to move on."
- Travaglini will call for a vote to adjourn. (The bad guys have the majority.)
- A quorum will not show up. (The bad guys have the majority.) The ConCon won't even happen. Maybe the Governor will try to force them back into session; maybe not.
- Question #19 will be taken up (originally our proposed bill to define marriage and ban "civil unions" in statute, illegally transformed through shenanigans involving Senators Barrios and the Senate President into an "amendment"). Since this would require a majority of the Legislature to pass, it will surely fail, since that many of our legislators have sold their souls to the CULTURE OF DEATH / GLBT Lobby.
- Question #20 -- VoteOnMarriage's flawed amendment, which we do not support -- would not be taken up if #19 is. The GLBT lobby /Travaglini will say, "Why consider the definition of "marriage" twice? It's time to move on. We've discussed this subject enough!" (Leaving aside that #20 only needs 50 votes to pass on to the required second year's ConCon, and has entirely different wording than #19.)
- VoteOnMarriage's amendment will come to a vote, and will get its 50 needed to pass on to next year's second, required ConCon.
It's a great plan. As time goes by, more and more regular people fall by the wayside, tired of defending real marriage and normal family values. Tired of calling unresponsive or nasty reps. Tired of writing checks to VoteOnMarriage. Meanwhile, millions from the national GLBT activist groups -- the Gill Foundation, Human Rights Campaign, The Victory Fund -- will flow into the state. This is their beachhead. They will give it all they have.
If the amendment ever goes to the popular vote (in 2008), we predict it will lose. Most voters these days respond to emotion, not logic or moral arguments. By 2008, more "GLBT families" will be in existence, more homosexual indoctrination in the schools will have had its effect.
Even if the VoteOnMarriage amendment passes, no good would come of it. Current "homosexual marriages" would be validated. Two classes of unequal GLBT citizens would be created (some allowed to marry, some not), and the court challenge for that "injustice" is already in the works. (See the Court's invitation to the GLBTs below.) Civil unions would not be outlawed. A silly "reciprocal benefits" law might be passed that would open another Pandora's box.
But look at the Supreme Judicial Court ruling yesterday. Though the GLBT activists are feigning surprise and disappointment that the SJC threw out their narrowly defined challenge to the VoteOnMarriage petition, even the Globe points out that they
... were heartened by a concurring opinion opinion written by justices John M. Greaney and Roderick L. Ireland that questions whether the proposed ban, if approved in 2008, would be constitutional.
Venturing beyond the scope of Reilly's certification of the ballot question, Greaney wrote that the 2003 decision legalizing same-sex marriage might be "irreversible" if the proposed amendment was held by the court to violate existing provisions in the constitution that guarantee equal rights.
"The only effect of a positive vote will be to make same-sex couples, and their families, unequal to everyone else," he wrote. "This is discrimination in its rawest form."
The ruling actually INVITED a challenge to the VoteOnMarriage amendment, should it be passed. Meaning, the SJC is prepared to do the unthinkable: rule a Constitutional amendment unconstitutional! (MassResistance/Article 8 Alliance warned of this last July, when the VoteOnMarriage plan was first announced.) In his concurring opinion, Justice Greaney (with Justice Ireland) writes:
"IF THE INITIATIVE IS APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND ULTIMATELY ADOPTED, THERE WILL BE TIME ENOUGH, IF AN APPROPRIATE LAWSUIT IS BROUGHT, FOR THIS COURT TO RESOLVE THE QUESTION WHETHER OUR CONSTITITUION CAN BE HOME TO PROVISIONS THAT ARE APPARENTLY MUTUALLY INCONSISTENT AND IRRECONCILABLE."