VoteOnMarriage had better listen up. A recent opinion piece in the radical homosexual newspaper, Bay Windows -- by the simpering house-"husband" ("married" to a man) who writes Boston Globe magazine articles about buying pink dresses for "their" baby daughter -- floats the latest idea on how to block the marriage amendment.
As VoteOnMarriage prepares for the next Constitutional Convention (which could come as early as May 9), where their amendment needs to be approved for a second time by at least 50 legislators before moving on to the voters, they should ready their arguments against the Bay Windows crowd, who say:
The following section (4) of the article [Article 48, outlining the procedure for citizen-initiated amendemt proposals] notes that upon receiving affirmative votes from one-fourth of the representatives [which happened on Jan. 2, 2007], the initiative “shall be referred to the next general court,” as it has been.
But this is the catch: in section 5, the final step of the process, there is no similar stated requirement for a second vote. Instead, there is only the conditionally-worded provision, that the initiative shall go before voters “if [it] shall again receive the affirmative votes…” The lack of a call for a second vote is not a mere technicality; or, I should say, in the law, there are no “mere” technicalities. Judges and legislators alike continually turn their eyes to the letter of the law, not the romantic or impassioned interpretations thereof, to settle questions of legal merit.
One might argue that the second vote is implicit, and that its omission from the text is a word-saving device by the amendment’s authors. But this seems unlikely when one reads the entire text; the article goes to great and somewhat linguistically unwieldy lengths to include all necessary factors, like the allowance for a submission of an amended version of the initiative’s wording. In terms of this debate, then, Article 48 is quite explicit about what is required: one vote on the initiative. For legislators who wish to be seen as towing the line, forcing upon the text an imagined requirement for a second vote is to then trump the actual law in favor of appearing to obey it. And to what end? Our legislators have already fulfilled their duties. They can now stand proud before the citizenry, able to state without hesitation that they took the job seriously and got it done.
Bay Windows also kindly provides the text of Article 48 at the end of this opinion piece. Of course, liberals only refer to original documents if they see an opening to manipulate some unintended loophole.
Showing posts with label VoteOnMarriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label VoteOnMarriage. Show all posts
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Weakness of "Marriage-is-about-children" Argument
This story from Washington state points out the weakness of the argument that we must protect marriage so every child will have a mother and father. This is the exclusive line used by Mitt Romney and Massachusetts Family Institute/VoteOnMarriage to justify real marriage.
"Gay marriage" proponents in Washington are pushing a ballot measure "that would require heterosexual married couples to have a child within three years or the marriage will be annulled. They say it is only fair because they are being denied the right to marry because they cannot have children."
All those who don’t want to touch the perverted, unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral aspects of homosexuality cannot satisfactorily answer this line of thinking. Also, note that the pro-homosexual marriage group in Washington state calls itself “Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance”… intentionally sowing confusion.
No Kids, No Marriage?
FOX News, 2-8-07
This is a partial transcript of The Big Story With John Gibson, February 7, 2007, that has been edited for clarity.
JOHN GIBSON, HOST: The "Big Buzz" is about the theater of the absurd going on in the state of Washington . Get this: Gay marriage proponents there are trying to get a measure on the November ballot that would require heterosexual married couples to have a child within three years or the marriage will be annulled. They say it is only fair because they are being denied the right to marry because they cannot have children.
Is what's good for gays also good for straights? "Big Story" correspondent Douglas Kennedy has the rest of the story in this in-your-face ballot initiative.
DOUGLAS KENNEDY, "BIG STORY" CORRESPONDENT: Yes, John, even the backers of this are calling it absurd. But they maintain it makes a point, namely, exposing the hypocrisy of those who say the sole purpose of marriage is to procreate.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KENNEDY (VOICE OVER): If you can't have babies, you can't get married. That would be the law in Washington State if voters there pass a possible ballot initiative. It is a proposal its sponsor says is simply trying to make a point.
GREGORY GADOW, WASH. DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ALLIANCE : If same-sex couples can be denied marriage because of that premise, it logically follows that all couples unable, or unwilling, to have children together, should likewise be prohibited from marriage.
KENNEDY: In addition, the initiative would require that couples unable or unwilling or unable to have babies within three years would have their marriage declared unrecognized. The language is in direct response to a July 2006 state supreme court decision, which upheld a law denying gay people the right to marry.
LISA STONE, NW WOMEN'S LAW CENTER : Essentially, that decision, which my organization, the Northwest Women's Law Center , litigated to the Washington Supreme Court said that the state has an interest in procreation, and that that interest is sufficient to deny marriage to same-sex couples.
TONY PERKINS, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: They're lampooning those who are supporting marriage across this country for very legitimate reasons.
KENNEDY: Tony Perkins heads the Family Research Council, a national group that does not want the gays to marry.
PERKINS: One of the core fabrics of our society is the family. It's preparing the next generation. It is raising children. It is procreation.
STONE: Families come in all shapes and sizes these days. There are inter-generational families, grandparents raising grandchildren. There are single-parent headed families and there are families for one reason or another that don't have children. There are also same-sex families that do have children and that raise those children in loving households.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KENNEDY: Supporters of the initiative say they are now gathering the signatures needed to get it on the November ballot. Still, even if it passes they say they are hoping, John, that it will not pass any constitutional muster.
GIBSON: It will be real weird. Douglas , thank you very much.
"Gay marriage" proponents in Washington are pushing a ballot measure "that would require heterosexual married couples to have a child within three years or the marriage will be annulled. They say it is only fair because they are being denied the right to marry because they cannot have children."
All those who don’t want to touch the perverted, unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral aspects of homosexuality cannot satisfactorily answer this line of thinking. Also, note that the pro-homosexual marriage group in Washington state calls itself “Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance”… intentionally sowing confusion.
No Kids, No Marriage?
FOX News, 2-8-07
This is a partial transcript of The Big Story With John Gibson, February 7, 2007, that has been edited for clarity.
JOHN GIBSON, HOST: The "Big Buzz" is about the theater of the absurd going on in the state of Washington . Get this: Gay marriage proponents there are trying to get a measure on the November ballot that would require heterosexual married couples to have a child within three years or the marriage will be annulled. They say it is only fair because they are being denied the right to marry because they cannot have children.
Is what's good for gays also good for straights? "Big Story" correspondent Douglas Kennedy has the rest of the story in this in-your-face ballot initiative.
DOUGLAS KENNEDY, "BIG STORY" CORRESPONDENT: Yes, John, even the backers of this are calling it absurd. But they maintain it makes a point, namely, exposing the hypocrisy of those who say the sole purpose of marriage is to procreate.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KENNEDY (VOICE OVER): If you can't have babies, you can't get married. That would be the law in Washington State if voters there pass a possible ballot initiative. It is a proposal its sponsor says is simply trying to make a point.
GREGORY GADOW, WASH. DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ALLIANCE : If same-sex couples can be denied marriage because of that premise, it logically follows that all couples unable, or unwilling, to have children together, should likewise be prohibited from marriage.
KENNEDY: In addition, the initiative would require that couples unable or unwilling or unable to have babies within three years would have their marriage declared unrecognized. The language is in direct response to a July 2006 state supreme court decision, which upheld a law denying gay people the right to marry.
LISA STONE, NW WOMEN'S LAW CENTER : Essentially, that decision, which my organization, the Northwest Women's Law Center , litigated to the Washington Supreme Court said that the state has an interest in procreation, and that that interest is sufficient to deny marriage to same-sex couples.
TONY PERKINS, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: They're lampooning those who are supporting marriage across this country for very legitimate reasons.
KENNEDY: Tony Perkins heads the Family Research Council, a national group that does not want the gays to marry.
PERKINS: One of the core fabrics of our society is the family. It's preparing the next generation. It is raising children. It is procreation.
STONE: Families come in all shapes and sizes these days. There are inter-generational families, grandparents raising grandchildren. There are single-parent headed families and there are families for one reason or another that don't have children. There are also same-sex families that do have children and that raise those children in loving households.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KENNEDY: Supporters of the initiative say they are now gathering the signatures needed to get it on the November ballot. Still, even if it passes they say they are hoping, John, that it will not pass any constitutional muster.
GIBSON: It will be real weird. Douglas , thank you very much.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Write Sodomy Into the Constitution -- By Any Means?
What will the Legislature do tomorrow, July 12, 2006 -- the date set for the state Constitutional Convention? On its calendar are two proposed marriage amendments, #19 (Sen. Barrios' ploy), and #20 (VoteOnMarriage's). Any of these things may happen:
It's a great plan. As time goes by, more and more regular people fall by the wayside, tired of defending real marriage and normal family values. Tired of calling unresponsive or nasty reps. Tired of writing checks to VoteOnMarriage. Meanwhile, millions from the national GLBT activist groups -- the Gill Foundation, Human Rights Campaign, The Victory Fund -- will flow into the state. This is their beachhead. They will give it all they have.
If the amendment ever goes to the popular vote (in 2008), we predict it will lose. Most voters these days respond to emotion, not logic or moral arguments. By 2008, more "GLBT families" will be in existence, more homosexual indoctrination in the schools will have had its effect.
Even if the VoteOnMarriage amendment passes, no good would come of it. Current "homosexual marriages" would be validated. Two classes of unequal GLBT citizens would be created (some allowed to marry, some not), and the court challenge for that "injustice" is already in the works. (See the Court's invitation to the GLBTs below.) Civil unions would not be outlawed. A silly "reciprocal benefits" law might be passed that would open another Pandora's box.
But look at the Supreme Judicial Court ruling yesterday. Though the GLBT activists are feigning surprise and disappointment that the SJC threw out their narrowly defined challenge to the VoteOnMarriage petition, even the Globe points out that they
... were heartened by a concurring opinion opinion written by justices John M. Greaney and Roderick L. Ireland that questions whether the proposed ban, if approved in 2008, would be constitutional.
Venturing beyond the scope of Reilly's certification of the ballot question, Greaney wrote that the 2003 decision legalizing same-sex marriage might be "irreversible" if the proposed amendment was held by the court to violate existing provisions in the constitution that guarantee equal rights.
"The only effect of a positive vote will be to make same-sex couples, and their families, unequal to everyone else," he wrote. "This is discrimination in its rawest form."
The ruling actually INVITED a challenge to the VoteOnMarriage amendment, should it be passed. Meaning, the SJC is prepared to do the unthinkable: rule a Constitutional amendment unconstitutional! (MassResistance/Article 8 Alliance warned of this last July, when the VoteOnMarriage plan was first announced.) In his concurring opinion, Justice Greaney (with Justice Ireland) writes:
"IF THE INITIATIVE IS APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND ULTIMATELY ADOPTED, THERE WILL BE TIME ENOUGH, IF AN APPROPRIATE LAWSUIT IS BROUGHT, FOR THIS COURT TO RESOLVE THE QUESTION WHETHER OUR CONSTITITUION CAN BE HOME TO PROVISIONS THAT ARE APPARENTLY MUTUALLY INCONSISTENT AND IRRECONCILABLE."
- Senate President Travaglini will postpone until November or December (then somehow it will just never come up before December 31). Question #20 will die at the end of the session. "It's time to move on."
- Travaglini will call for a vote to adjourn. (The bad guys have the majority.)
- A quorum will not show up. (The bad guys have the majority.) The ConCon won't even happen. Maybe the Governor will try to force them back into session; maybe not.
- Question #19 will be taken up (originally our proposed bill to define marriage and ban "civil unions" in statute, illegally transformed through shenanigans involving Senators Barrios and the Senate President into an "amendment"). Since this would require a majority of the Legislature to pass, it will surely fail, since that many of our legislators have sold their souls to the CULTURE OF DEATH / GLBT Lobby.
- Question #20 -- VoteOnMarriage's flawed amendment, which we do not support -- would not be taken up if #19 is. The GLBT lobby /Travaglini will say, "Why consider the definition of "marriage" twice? It's time to move on. We've discussed this subject enough!" (Leaving aside that #20 only needs 50 votes to pass on to the required second year's ConCon, and has entirely different wording than #19.)
- VoteOnMarriage's amendment will come to a vote, and will get its 50 needed to pass on to next year's second, required ConCon.
It's a great plan. As time goes by, more and more regular people fall by the wayside, tired of defending real marriage and normal family values. Tired of calling unresponsive or nasty reps. Tired of writing checks to VoteOnMarriage. Meanwhile, millions from the national GLBT activist groups -- the Gill Foundation, Human Rights Campaign, The Victory Fund -- will flow into the state. This is their beachhead. They will give it all they have.
If the amendment ever goes to the popular vote (in 2008), we predict it will lose. Most voters these days respond to emotion, not logic or moral arguments. By 2008, more "GLBT families" will be in existence, more homosexual indoctrination in the schools will have had its effect.
Even if the VoteOnMarriage amendment passes, no good would come of it. Current "homosexual marriages" would be validated. Two classes of unequal GLBT citizens would be created (some allowed to marry, some not), and the court challenge for that "injustice" is already in the works. (See the Court's invitation to the GLBTs below.) Civil unions would not be outlawed. A silly "reciprocal benefits" law might be passed that would open another Pandora's box.
But look at the Supreme Judicial Court ruling yesterday. Though the GLBT activists are feigning surprise and disappointment that the SJC threw out their narrowly defined challenge to the VoteOnMarriage petition, even the Globe points out that they
... were heartened by a concurring opinion opinion written by justices John M. Greaney and Roderick L. Ireland that questions whether the proposed ban, if approved in 2008, would be constitutional.
Venturing beyond the scope of Reilly's certification of the ballot question, Greaney wrote that the 2003 decision legalizing same-sex marriage might be "irreversible" if the proposed amendment was held by the court to violate existing provisions in the constitution that guarantee equal rights.
"The only effect of a positive vote will be to make same-sex couples, and their families, unequal to everyone else," he wrote. "This is discrimination in its rawest form."
The ruling actually INVITED a challenge to the VoteOnMarriage amendment, should it be passed. Meaning, the SJC is prepared to do the unthinkable: rule a Constitutional amendment unconstitutional! (MassResistance/Article 8 Alliance warned of this last July, when the VoteOnMarriage plan was first announced.) In his concurring opinion, Justice Greaney (with Justice Ireland) writes:
"IF THE INITIATIVE IS APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND ULTIMATELY ADOPTED, THERE WILL BE TIME ENOUGH, IF AN APPROPRIATE LAWSUIT IS BROUGHT, FOR THIS COURT TO RESOLVE THE QUESTION WHETHER OUR CONSTITITUION CAN BE HOME TO PROVISIONS THAT ARE APPARENTLY MUTUALLY INCONSISTENT AND IRRECONCILABLE."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)