Saturday, January 14, 2006

Haskins Part IV - Elephant in the Room: "Gay Marriage" Still Not Legal

Here is Part IV of our series by John Haskins on why "gay marriage" is still not legal in Massachusetts. [See Part I, Part II, Part III.]

The elephant in the living room that the Boston Globe's homosexual editors won't allow to be reported honestly is that the gender-specific language in Massachusetts law does itself already preclude same-sex "marriage."

Let's set up a remote analogy to get some perspective. If a treaty is ratified between the United States and France, no separate law is needed to stop Germany claiming in an American court that it is party to that treaty. The parties were already enumerated: the United States and France (or in the case of marriage, a man and a woman.) The Supreme Court cannot legally re-interpret that treaty to include Germany. Courts have no jurisdiction over treaties as long as they do not compromise U.S sovereignty, etc. Legislators could ratify a new treaty with Germany, or perhaps modify the old treaty to include Germany. But Courts cannot tamper with treaties. Germany is not mentioned in the treaty, and courts have no jurisdiction in foreign policy. Clear.

Similarly, Massachusetts courts have no jurisdiction in marriage policy. Zero. Period. Under the state constitution they can "rule" any way they want, but it is meaningless noise -- no more binding than if an eight-year-old announces that he is emperor of the United States. That is what the three dissenting justices in the Goodridge case essentially pointed out. So the court's ruling is out of the picture -- totally unenforceable.

We are left only with an ambitious governor who wants to please the Boston Globe. Let's not forget Governor Romney's record includes: banishing the Boy Scouts from the Olympics for their policy of refusing homosexual applicants for scoutmaster; publicly rebuking his wife, son, and daughter-in-law for signing the original petition to amend the Mass. Constitution to define marriage; and calling those behind the petition "religious bigots".

Then in 2004 Romney, under no legal pressure at all from an illegal ruling, decided to demand the resignations of any state officials who valued their oaths to the constitution more highly than the illegal court ruling. No one stood up for them and they lost their jobs. The Globe's homosexual editors provided cover for Romney and -- stupidly-- some pro-family activists, conservative pundits, and politicians pretended (and still pretend) there was some kind of constitutional obligation pushing Romney to start handing out licenses to homosexual couples!

In fact, Romney has no legal right to issue such licenses since they violate the laws of the state. The new same-sex "marriage" licenses are legally void because they do not include the two parties enumerated in the law: "husband" and "wife." (The new licenses say "Party A and Party B"!) That's the prohibition that people are missing. "Husband" and "wife" are an essential part of the marriage law. Romney cannot get around that. Only the legislature could negate the "husband" and "wife" requirement. Even if they ever do change the law, the licenses issued prior would remain legally null.

We'll keep losing battles and arguments if we do not hammer away tirelessly at the constitutional contradictions of the Massachusetts homosexual "marriage" ruling. It is much more obviously anti-constitutional than almost any ruling that I know of in American history -- including the fraudulent Roe v. Wade. It is a terrible mistake -- surrendering something strategically indispensable, actually -- to say "homosexual marriage is now legal in Massachusetts" or that the court "gave same-sex couples the right to marry." Courts cannot give rights.