We've gotten some interesting responses to two recent postings: Proof: Homosexual "Marriage" Still Not Legal in Massachusetts and "Surrender with Dignity" Conservatives. So for more along these lines:
We're all involved in an elaborate "Emperor-Has-No Clothes" charade, informed parties knowing full well that homosexual "marriage" is still not legal. As in the fairy tale, most -- but not all of us -- are keeping quiet. And the fantasy is being played out due only to the unilateral actions of Governor Romney. He ordered the printing of "Partner A/Partner B" marriage licenses, and ordered that all Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks cooperate with the fantasy of "marrying" homosexual partners. He did not have to do this. The Court did not order him to do so, and there was in fact no "homosexual marriage" LAW he had to uphold!
Let's go back to a news story that appeared on the day of the Goodridge ruling (Nov. 18, 2003) from our venerable Supreme Judicial Court. Before all the spin began, WCVB News Center 5 in Boston reported:
State's Highest Court Says 'Yes' To Gay Marriage
Legislature Has 180 Days To Decide On Amending Constitution
[Note: It does not say that Gov. Romney has 180 days to decide!]
M.R.F. Buckley, Staff Writer
POSTED: 10:34 am EST November 18, 2003
UPDATED: 6:35 am EST November 19, 2003
BOSTON -- Massachusetts highest court ruled Tuesday that it is illegal under the state's constitution to ban gay marriages, but left it up to the state Legislature to decide how the state will amend its Constitution to legalize gay marriages or unions. [Note: The Court ordered the Legislature -- not the Governor -- to act. The Court had NOT legalized "gay marriages", but recognized the Legislature as the branch which must do so. Though whether the Court even had this authority to order the Legislature is another question!]
... The SJC ruled in a 4-3 decision that the Legislature now has 180 days to act on the state's Constitution. ... The court went on to say that it's up to the Legislature to decide whether same sex couples can legally marry in the state. "We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution ... Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion." [And if the Legislature did nothing, what could the Court do to enforce its ruling?]
Gov. Mitt Romney, who opposes gay marriage, offered swift reaction. He said he will do everything he can to prevent gay marriages in the state, saying he disagreed with the SJC decision and will put forth an amendment to limit the legal definition of marriage in the state. [But Romney, while at first appearing to recognize that legislative action was required, went on to facilitate "homosexual marriage" without any legislative action! Filing an amendment to protect marriage is a far cry from printing licenses and issuing orders for "homosexual marriages" to commence, which Romney did do in May 2004.]
"Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman and the exact equivalent to marriage is also reserved to a man and a woman. Over the next several months I'll work together with Legislative leadership and other legislators and community leaders to decide what kind of statute we can fashion which is consistent with the law. We obviously have to follow the law as provided by the Supreme Judicial Court, even if we don't agree with it, we're going to follow it in terms of preparing legislation and we'll have legislation which conforms to the law. [What "law"? There was only a court ruling! If there were already "law" handed down by the Court, why would the Legislature have to act?] But we will, at the same time, initiate a constitutional amendment process, and that constitutional amendment process will be consistent with what I think the feelings are of the people of the commonwealth, and of course, the entire sweep of recorded history," said Romney. ...
"This is sounding an awful lot like Vermont," said David Yas of Lawyer's Weekly. "The SJC stopped short of giving a blanket rights of all gay couples to marry and instead sending it to the Legislature for what will ultimately be some sort of compromise. In Vermont, this is more or less what happened." Yas predicted Massachusetts could ultimately end up with a civil union law for gays, similar to what Vermont approved. ... [Yas recognized that only the Legislature was called upon by the Court to act, and that the Court did not implement "gay marriage".]
