The Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) is burning mad about my criticism of their plan to launch a new citizen's referendum for a marriage amendment to our state constitution. I explained why their goal is unsound and unrealistic, and would drain our side's resources.
Why won't MFI join forces with Article 8 to go after the only real solution: removing the judges?
But the MFI referendum plan is even more disturbing than we first reported.
We hear from reliable sources (in our nation's capital) that MFI wants to spell out benefits IN THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT which homosexual couples will be guaranteed... But oh, by the way, they still believe "marriage is only between one man and one woman."
Does this approach sound familiar? "Protecting traditional marriage" while simultaneously recognizing "civil unions" (which are essentially "homosexual marriages")?
Why doesn't MFI just support the amendement currently before the Massachusetts legislature? (Now pending its second vote, it requires a simple majority of the combined legislature before going to the voters. It would define marriage as 1 man + 1 woman, and allow "civil unions".)
Adding to the craziness, there is a provision which could severely delay MFI's proposed referendum: If a proposed amendment is substantially the same as something currently before the legislature (and it sounds like it will be), an automatic delay clicks in. So the whole process would become incredibly long.
Scuttlebutt is that Senate President Travaglini will use this fine print to grant further advantage for the homosexual activists, and delay the second vote on the current proposed amendment as long as possible (till late 2006). So who knows when the MFI referendum might ever get to the voters for the preliminary signatures! (And then -- it would still have to be passed in two consecutive legislative sessions, then go back to the voters!).
Go figure.
Why won't MFI join forces with Article 8 to go after the only real solution: removing the judges?
But the MFI referendum plan is even more disturbing than we first reported.
We hear from reliable sources (in our nation's capital) that MFI wants to spell out benefits IN THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT which homosexual couples will be guaranteed... But oh, by the way, they still believe "marriage is only between one man and one woman."
Does this approach sound familiar? "Protecting traditional marriage" while simultaneously recognizing "civil unions" (which are essentially "homosexual marriages")?
Why doesn't MFI just support the amendement currently before the Massachusetts legislature? (Now pending its second vote, it requires a simple majority of the combined legislature before going to the voters. It would define marriage as 1 man + 1 woman, and allow "civil unions".)
Adding to the craziness, there is a provision which could severely delay MFI's proposed referendum: If a proposed amendment is substantially the same as something currently before the legislature (and it sounds like it will be), an automatic delay clicks in. So the whole process would become incredibly long.
Scuttlebutt is that Senate President Travaglini will use this fine print to grant further advantage for the homosexual activists, and delay the second vote on the current proposed amendment as long as possible (till late 2006). So who knows when the MFI referendum might ever get to the voters for the preliminary signatures! (And then -- it would still have to be passed in two consecutive legislative sessions, then go back to the voters!).
Go figure.
