The latest email alert from the Article 8 Alliance comments on the story of the federal judge who just overturned the Nebraska state amendment banning same-sex "marriage":
"What else do we need to say? Those of you who think that a constitutional amendment will "save" us had better think again. Unless we do the hard work of removing activist judges this problem will only continue."
According to the May 12 AP story,
"A federal judge Thursday struck down Nebraska's ban on gay marriage, saying the measure interferes not only with the rights of gay couples but also with those of foster parents, adopted children and people in a host of other living arrangements.
"The constitutional amendment, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, was passed overwhelmingly by the voters in November 2000.
"U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon said the ban 'imposes significant burdens on both the expressive and intimate associational rights' of gays 'and creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs' right to petition or to participate in the political process.'
"The ruling did not surprise the executive director of the Nebraska Family Council, which led the petition drive to get the ban on the ballot. Al Riskowski said the decision will renew the call to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman."
Slow learners, aren't they? Why do they think a federal constitutional amendment will fare any better than their state constitutional amendment? The problem is the judges, at the state and federal level!
MassResistance pointed out back on March 30 that a citizens' petition to put an amendment on the ballot in this state was not the answer. In January, we explained that an amendment would probably never make it to the voters. Even if approved by the voters, it would not be allowed to stand by the same Supreme Judicial Court that already ruled for same-sex "marriage".
Meanwhile, we hear that the Massachusetts Family Institute is still planning a campaign to get signatures for a Constitutional amendment (which would go first to the Massachusetts legislature, then out to the voters). Please, let's not waste precious resources going after this chimera.
The problem is the judges, both our state Supremes and, as the Nebraska story proves, the federal judges.
Here in Massachusetts, there is a provision which allows us to remove tyrannical judges. That's what Article 8 is advocating. By removing the SJC4, we can overturn the same-sex marriage ruling, and bring sanity back to our state. And set an example for the rest of the country to follow.
