Lt. Governor Kerry Healey announced on Friday that she supports the proposed constitutional ban on "gay marriage". But she also supports "civil unions" and says she will work to implement them if the amendment is passed in 2008. (Gov. Romney promised to work for "reciprocal benefits" for "gay" couples -- unclear how they differ from "civil unions" -- and believes that "gay marriages" existing prior to the amendment's 2008 effective date should be allowed to stand!)
Doesn't Lt. Gov. Healey realize that her stand against "gay marriage", but for "civil unions" (really the equivalent of "gay marriage"), runs afoul of the pronouncement of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court? Remember that Empress Margaret told the Legislature that "civil unions" would not satisfy her, since "separate is not equal"! Only full "marriage" status would do for the sodomitally conjoined, declared Empress Margaret.
So ... what will Lt. Gov. Healey do, if elected Governor, to stand up to the SJC? If the new amendment is passed in 2008, will she stand up to the Court when it declares the amendment invalid or unconstitutional? (Who cares what Attorney General Tom Reilly ruled when allowing the petition to go foward!)
The Globe reported:
Healey, who intends to run for governor if Mitt Romney decides not to seek reelection, said that she would vote for the gay-marriage ban if it appears on the ballot. But she also said she would work to authorize civil unions if the ballot initiative passes in 2008.
Yesterday Healey and Romney recommended that the state party's platform encourage a public referendum on matters of dramatic social importance such as legalizing gay marriage, rather than allowing appointed judges to make the decision. But they did not call for the party platform to endorse a ban.
Currently, the state party platform does not mention same-sex marriage or voter initiatives. By contrast, the Republican National Committee platform supports President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage ... The state Republican committee has not voted on the issue, leading some in the gay rights movement to criticize the committee's involvement in the petition drive.
On Thursday, the Boston Globe reported a rift in the Mass. Republican Party over the proposed amendment banning "gay marriage". A curious statement was that the Party's support for traditional marriage signals a "rightward shift":
Signaling a rightward shift under the leadership of Governor Mitt Romney, Republican strategists have sent numerous e-mails since September to party members asking them to help opponents of same-sex marriage collect signatures for the proposed ban. Sponsors of the ban are due to turn over the names to city and town clerks next week.
Romney has repeatedly emphasized his opposition to gay marriage as he prepares for a potential run for president, but the Massachusetts Republican Party platform, drafted in 2002 before same-sex marriage was legalized, does not address the subject. A state committeewoman complained yesterday that members were not consulted on the party's involvement, but the state GOP's executive director emphasized that the party's strategy should not be read as an endorsement of the ban.
Come to think of it, the Globe may be right. Even though 70%+ of American voters oppose "gay marriage", this pitiful action of gathering signatures IS a rightward shift for Massachusetts "Republicans"! They have been spineless on the most important social issue since abortion, even telling their 2004 legislative candidates to avoid addressing the issue at all costs!
