A few days ago, we posted the first part of John Haskins' response to the queer activists' feeble attempt to answer our question: where is the statute legalizing homosexual "marriage"?
Here is Part II of John Haskins' response (and there's more to come...):
In the spirit of friendship, here are some gifts to those who dedicate their days and nights to ensure that no American child a generation from now will have the faintest clue what it was like when children were allowed to be children and learn of the human family, sexuality, and morality in the manner and definitions that formed their civilization -- Some crib notes on Beacon Hill's homosexual marriage scam (and remember the Boston Globe doesn't get to mark the final examination):
Laws forbid things not only explicitly but implicitly. Laws usually implicitly forbid far more than they explicitly forbid. Existing Massachusetts marriage law HAS gender-specific language which implicitly requires one husband and one wife to fulfill the two enumerated categories of the contract. The language in those laws remains binding. Judges can't tinker with it. Period.
Judges can't just cynically conjure up bizarre new meanings agreed upon at their last cocktail party to (as with Roe v Wade) and ignore actual ratified language in other laws (like Massachusetts marriage law) because they don't like what they mean. That's how the Soviets practiced "jurisprudence:" making it up as they went along, despite what is said to have been a beautiful and glorious Soviet constitution.
Under the Massachusetts constitution, judges have no authority to strike down any law, to change its meaning -- or to order the two elected branches to do anything. When an attorney argues otherwise he is arguing not from the state constitution, but mindlessly importing dubious legal theories on the United States Constitution that do not apply to the Massachusetts Constitution, because the state constitution forcefully rejects judicial policymaking in multiple ways.
Our state constitution explicitly denies the court ANY jurisdiction over marriage -- as the three dissenting justices and an appellate court forcefully pointed out. Whatever opinions on marriage they might issue are categorically illegal rulings, thus non-binding.
(Are we having fun yet?)
Moreover, even if the state constitution did not totally deny judges a voice in marriage, the ruling could only apply to the specific plaintiff in the case, because the state constitution says the people are "not bound by any law not ratified by their elected representatives in the legislature." Even if a Massachusetts court ruling were "law" it would not be binding on the people outside the courtroom. READ the state constitution! We were established as an elective democracy through the bloody sacrifices of American soldiers who would never have died for a Judge's or a cowardly Governor's right to overrule democracy and the constitution in one fell swoop. The state's fundamental legal document denies courts ANY binding role in shaping policy. They sit under the law, never over it.
(Are we having fun now?)
The reasons go on and on. There is no way around them. They are fatal problems for the homosexual "marriage" cause, as more than one judge and attorney has pointed out. Read my article, 'Conservative' Romney buckles and blunders, then study the relevant portions of the Massachusetts Constitution and it will dawn on you that in at least four different ways these homosexual "marriages" exist only outside the law. Void. Null. Illegal. A political fantasy. Well -- that's if constitutions count when they negate left-wing agendas.
