The Boston Globe's story on the supposed upcoming vote on VoteOnMarriage's amendment in the Constitutional Convention, now postponed until July 12, only tells half the story. First, it's very possible that the Empress Margaret and her Supreme Judicial Court will come through once again for the radical homosexuals, and throw the amendment out as "unconstitutional". No mention of that here.
The Globe does note Rep. John Rogers' interview in Bay Windows (which we wrote about last week), where he probably too hastily confirmed the rumor that the homosexual caucus will sing songs on the State House steps and prevent a quorum at the ConCon, thus avoiding a vote. They know they have the majority to achieve this, but are unsure they have the 151 votes to block the amendment's required 50 votes.
But the Globe does not mention that VoteOnMarriage is item #20 on the ConCon calendar for that day -- while item #19 is the amendment with a pure definition of marriage. We filed it (#19) as a bill -- to become a statute, not an amendment! And why did homosexual activist Senator Barrios turn it into an amendment?
Let's see ... If Senate President Travaglini goes down the ConCon calendar items in order, #19 will come up for a vote first. It would define marriage as one man + one woman, no "civil unions", no allowance for the homosexual "marriages" which have occurred since May 2004. This amendment would require a majority -- 101 -- to pass, which almost certainly is not there. So the homosexual lobby knows they have the votes to defeat #19.
So how about this scenario: The ConCon goes right down the list, gets to #19, votes it down, then adjourns. Then no one can say they didn't take up a marriage amendment. And no voters can say they weren't allowed a voice (through their reps and senators).
The silver linings in this scenario are: (1) We'd have a recorded vote showing exactly where every legislator stands on marriage; (2) The terribly flawed VoteOnMarriage amendment would disappear.
Yesterday our legislators were smelling bouquets delivered by homosexual activists on the 2nd anniversary of the phony "marriages". How many more bouquets, and campaign contributions, will be delivered on July 12?
