New book on gay marriage in Massachusetts

My new book will be available soon! 

Corrupt Bargains
How Gay Marriage Began in Massachusetts

by Amy L. Contrada

The book is a unique, 500-page documentary history of the constitutional crisis surrounding the implementation of gay marriage in Massachusetts, 2001-2007.

In 2003, Massachusetts became the first state to formally recognize same-sex marriage. In a 4-3 ruling, the state’s Supreme Judicial Court declared that the Massachusetts Constitution (written by John Adams) protected same-sex marriage as an inviolable right. This absurdity went unchallenged by the political elite who cared nothing for the constitution’s clear separation of powers. While the state’s marriage law was never changed, the executive branch (under Governor Mitt Romney) illegally implemented same-sex marriage – blindly accepting the court as the ultimate authority, despite widespread calls to reject its ruling.

CORRUPT BARGAINS is a unique history of how same-sex marriage began in Massachusetts. It is the only documentary account of the corrupt maneuvering of politicians and pro-LGBT special interest groups during this constitutional crisis (2001-2007). Massachusetts developed the template for the deceptive political strategies that would dupe the conservative establishment and citizenry across the country. The tactics behind the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling on same-sex marriage (2015) were crafted in Massachusetts.

The successful LGBT strategy was to ignore questions of morality and public health, invent “rights,” demand “fairness” and “equality,” and flood the zone with emotional propaganda. The achievement of same-sex marriage cleared the way for the next big goal of the sexual radicals: transgender rights.

CORRUPT BARGAINS is a case study of how corrupt government officials circumvent constitutional governance. The book provides a front-row view of these precedent-setting events. It has rescued rare sources from the memory hole, with up-to-date links in the 900 endnotes.

Rep. Loscocco Took Money from Homosexual Lobby

According to posted reports, State Representative Paul Loscocco [R - Hopkinton, Holliston], one-time defender of traditional values and real marriage, took a very dirty $125 from the Mass. Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus in October 2006. (See Mass. Elections Division, Office of Campaign and Political Finance.) Loscocco shocked conservatives and Republicans around the state when he flipped on the marriage amendment at the June 14 Constitutional Convention. Loscocco has also refused to support our parents' rights bills.

Will the bag lady, Arline Isaacson, be attending Rep. Loscocco's fundraiser at the Union Club on Park Street this evening at 5:30? Since her 2006 donation was rather small, we wouldn't be surprised to see more donations coming his way tonight from the homosexual lobby. It's a convenient location for State House "special interests". We're sure Messrs. Gill and Guerriero can find people to celebrate with Loscocco tonight. Maybe the Mass Federation of Teachers will attend (they gave him $100 in November 2006).

Or did the Rep really sell his soul for only $125?

MassEquality Shifting Focus to "Trans Rights & Hate Crimes" Bill

Bay Windows has a long piece on MassEquality's future focus, now that they believe homosexual marriage" is secured. It is clear that they'll be helping the Mass. Transgender Political Caucus pass its "transgender rights and hate crimes" bill (H1722). Remember that the Gill Foundation's Patrick Guerriero -- who brought in millions to secure defeat of the marriage amendment -- is also committed to the "trans rights" cause. So we're sure that MassEquality -- which also benefits from Gill's largesse -- is clearly on that bandwagon, more than they're publicly acknowledging. From "MassEquality plots its future," Bay Windows (7-25-07):

The Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition (MTPC) of which MassEquality is a member organization, on July 17 sent a letter to the MassEquality board of directors asking that the organization step up to the plate on the effort to pass a bill that would outlaw discrimination based on gender identity or expression and enhance penalties against perpetrators of crimes motivated by the victim’s gender identity or expression....

Ryan [MTPC co-chair; a "transwoman"] said that this is the first time MTPC has reached out to the MassEquality board for help on the transgender rights bill. Both she and fellow MTPC Co-Chair Gunner Scott ["transman"] said that though they have long had conversations with MassEquality staff members about the bill, they recognized that the organization’s primary focus was on securing marriage equality. Now, said Scott, “If they’re going to continue as a GLBT equality organization we’d like, of course, for them to focus on the trans bill that’s currently pending.” Solomon [MassEquality director] agreed that the LGBT community must turn its attention to securing protections for transgender people. “Passing an aggressive transgender civil rights bill that protects transgender people from hate crimes and discrimination has got to be a top community priority,” he said. [emphasis added]

Not mentioned in the Bay Windows article: MassEquality is also now quietly working hard to be sure they have the votes to actually LEGALIZE "gay marriage" -- with an actual LAW! Though why they think the law is important, we don't know. They certainly don't want the public to know about this little glitch -- that Mass. statutes still don't allow same-sex "marriage"! While he didn't mention that issue, Marc Solomon of MassEquality did say (immediately after the defeat of the marriage amendment on June 14) that he was working on the best timing to overturn the 1913 law barring out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying here. Though we're not sure why they need to do that either, since Massachusetts bureaucrats claim they are now empowered to tell other states what to do. (See yesterday's news on the Mass. DPH bureaucrat who issued a fiat allowing New Mexico homosexual couples to marry here.) MassEquality and the Trans Caucus have a sure ally in Gov. Deval Patrick for these bills, which will probably all be heard by the Judiciary Committee in the Fall:

• legalizing their same-sex "marriages" H1710, S918


• overturning the 1913 law barring marriages by out-of-state same-sex couples S800, S1029


• "transgender rights and hate crimes" H1722.

The Bay Windows article also describes some of the payback going on with the vote switchers on the marriage amendment:

As the MassEquality board weighs the organization’s future, daily work continues. Most importantly, the organization has set about offering support to the nine legislators who switched from supporting to opposing the amendment between the Jan. 2 ConCon and the June 14 session and the two freshman lawmakers who had campaigned on support for the amendment last fall but ultimately decided to vote against it. To that end, MassEquality Development Director Scott Gortikov [who once donated to MassResistance in an attempt to get on our email alert list] has been working with some of the organization’s major donors — gay and straight — to steer campaign contributions to the newest crop of pro-equality legislators, who may be vulnerable in next year’s elections because of their vote switch. Gortikov declined to name specific legislators who have benefited from his work thus far. ...

Besides steering major donors toward potentially imperiled pro-equality legislators, MassEquality is also encouraging its members to attend fundraisers for their respective lawmakers. On July 12, for example, members of the affiliate group Quincy for Marriage Equality were a visible presence at Sen. Michael Morrissey’s annual fundraiser at Waterworks, a Quincy nightspot. ... Beyond campaign contributions, MassEquality members are making their support for vote switchers visible in other ways, said Solomon. For instance, in a Fourth of July parade in state Sen. Gale Candaras’s Western Mass. district, a crowd of marriage equality supporters turned up waving signs thanking Candaras for coming around to the cause of equality after several years of anti-equality votes.

Catholics Across America Outraged at Pseudo-Catholic Mass. Legislators

There's outrage nationally among faithful Catholics over recent votes by Massachusetts legislators. From the Concerned Roman Catholics of America:

MORE ON GRAVE SCANDAL WITHIN THE "KNIGHTS" OF COLUMBUS- FOUR MORE ADDED TO LIST OF JUDAS KNIGHTS IN MASS.

I have just heard from John O’Gorman, the Fighting Knight of Columbus from Massachusetts , that the 170,000 signature Initiative Petition to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman was thwarted by the Legislature, meeting in joint Constitutional Convention, on Thursday, June 14 2007. The sad part is it would have passed to go on the ballot in 2008 had it not been for the votes of at least sixteen men who call themselves Knights of Columbus who voted against the Church they are supposed to be Knights of, and for the sodomites they support! They are:

Massachusetts Speaker of the House Sal Dimasi, and House Majority Leader John Rogers.
State Reps: Garrett Bradley, Bob Deleo, Stephen Di Natale, Chris Donelan, Christopher Fallon, Kevin Honan, Charles Murphy, Angelo Puppolo and Bob Spellane, Bob Nyman, and Paul McMurtry.
State Senators: Tom McGee, Michael Knapik, and Michael Morrissey.

It only required 50 votes to bring this to the people of Massachusetts for a vote. The vote was 45 to do so. If the sixteen so called Knights had voted with the Church, and for the good of society, they would have had SIXTY ONE! God have mercy on their much compromised souls!

Seven of these Judases have PRO-CHOICE RATINGS FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MASS,, they are: The Speaker Dimasi, Bradley, Donelan, Honan , Murphy, Spellane, and McGee!

It seems that the Knights of Columbus, like the Bishops they follow, like to write nice things but run when they are asked to back up their writings with actions! In 2003, they actually passed a Resolution to in effect expel from the Order any Knight who supports abortion by forbidding these persons any honors or speaking platforms. WHAT A JOKE! Actually it is worse than a joke, because we have been told that whenever a Council tried to enforce the Resolution, that Council was quickly told not to do so by either their State or Supreme Offices!

Our Divine Savior had a great deal to say about such as these "Knights" when he said "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you are like to whited sepulchers, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within, are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness. So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."—Matt. XXIII. 25-28. Does anyone wonder what the Lord will say to these men when they stand before His Judgment seat?

God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher,
Founder & Chairman Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Anaheim, CA
June 16, 2007

Foul Speech from Romney Campaign

Great stuff on EyeOn08 on our least favorite Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. A Romney campaign official has called Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas a "bottom feeder" and posted a photo of an ugly bottom-feeding fish alongside the silly commentary. This from one Jason Bonham (Illinois State Director, Legacy Law Foundation, Illinois), who is allied with the infamous David French, a Senior Counsel with the nominally conservative Alliance Defense Fund and "Evangelicals for Mitt". (Legacy Law is a Mormon group based in Utah, and is linked to VoteOnMarriage through Romney.)

(Some of these "conservative" legal foundations are becoming a joke, ready to give in on crucial principles. For instance, the Alliance Defense Fund is behind the wording of the compromised and failed VoteOnMarriage amendment here in Massacusetts. See our posting from October 2005: "Amateur Hour: Immigrant Law Student Behind Flawed "VoteOnMarriage" Research". ADF and Romney like civil unions -- not a conservative position.)

See also EyeOn08 "Romney on His 2002 Campaign Promise" -- to uphold abortion "rights" in Massachusetts. Excellent analysis and links.

Back to the mess Romney left for us here in Massachusetts, the homosexual "marriages" he ESTABLISHED through his Legal Counsel's office. Romney says he's disappointed in the outcome of Friday's marriage amendment vote, because the people are denied a say in defining marriage.

What a sham! Romney single-handedly implemented an illegitimate Court ruling, violated the Constitution by changing the marriage licenses, and ordered Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to follow a "law" that's now a law. (Remember that all the Court said was that the Legislature should act, which it had not right to tell them, and the Legislature did not act to change the statutes.) Why did Romney implement the "marriages"? Yet now he pretends to care so much about protecting marriage and the people's voice. Does anyone really believe him?

[Boston Globe, 6-15-07:] "Unfortunately, our elected representatives decided that the voice of the people did not need to be heard in this debate," he said in a statement. Romney reiterated his call for Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage ... The vote yesterday helps Romney, West [Brown U political scientist] said. "It gives him credibility in other parts of the country as something other than a Massachusetts politician."

As we've said all along, Romney should have no credibility when people hear the truth about his role in the marriage debacle here in Massachusetts. BTW, why does Romney think a federal amendment is needed for marriage, but that it's OK to leave abortion laws up to the states? If something is wrong, shouldn't it be wrong in every state?

Boston Archdiocese Failed the People on Marriage

The Boston Archidiocese shares the responsibility for yesterday's debacle at the State House, as they were part of the VoteOnMarriage organization that failed the people:

"It's clear that the archdiocese is not serious about this issue. There is no real penalty being exacted on people who are in support of same sex marriage."
- Phil Lawler, Catholic World News editor

Most of the Legislators here are nominally Catholic, so why were they not concerned about their standing in the Church? and before God? We note that we saw NOT ONE Catholic priest outside the State House yesterday (though there were a few Franciscan brothers). There were plenty of pseudo-Christian "clerics" on the other side.

Remember that neither Mass. Family Institute nor the Archdiocese helped push the first (and better) marriage amendment back in 2001 and 2002 (the one the Legislature and Acting Governor Jane Swift unconstitutionally threw in the trash, refusing to take a vote). That was the time for action that could have succeeded -- prior to the seduction of many of our legislators by the wealthy sodomy lobby, and prior to the insane Supreme Judicial Court ruling (which they knew was in the works).

Phil Lawler, a Massachusetts resident, is editor of Catholic World News, and was Constitution Party candidate against Ted Kennedy in 2000. He spoke with LifeSite News yesterday about the failure of the Church to hold Catholic legislators feet to the fire. (The LifeSite article ends by urging its readers to contact Cardinal O'Malley.)

Key Advisor to Cardinal O'Malley Writes Pro-Gay 'Marriage' Column in Boston Newspaper
By Peter J. Smith and John-Henry Westen
BOSTON, June 14, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com)

... Phil Lawler, the editor and founder of Catholic World News who has an upcoming book called The Faithful Departed on the collapse of Catholic influence in the Boston area, commented to LifeSiteNews.com about the situation in light of today's vote loss.

"It's clear that the archdiocese is not serious about this issue," said Lawler. "There is no real penalty being exacted on people who are in support of same sex marriage."Lawler explained, "People who are supporting traditional marriage, who supported the marriage amendment were going to have to pay a pretty heavy price in terms of the wrath of the gay rights lobby, of Governor Patrick, of the editorial writers all around the state. But people who abandoned the cause, people who supported same sex marriage, and opposed this amendment were not going to face any real problems with the leadership of the Catholic Church."He concluded, "And that's really in my mind the biggest reason for today's outcome." ...

The LifeSite article also discusses Peter Meade's article in the Boston Herald:

Gay marriage is just another step in "natural social evolution" writes a high profile lay advisor to Boston Archbishop Cardinal O'Malley. The advisor, Peter Meade--one of seven members of Catholic Charities in Boston who resigned over the Archdiocese's decision to ban same-sex couples from adopting--maintains his position on the committee O'Malley appointed to recommend which parishes in the Archdiocese ought to be closed."

On May 17, 2004, the day marriage was made legal for everyone in Massachusetts, we looked out our window to see - contrary to apocalyptic predictions - that the sun had actually risen," wrote Meade and his wife Rosanne Bacon Meade in a column published Tuesday by the Boston Herald. "Life went on quite normally not only that day, but every day since." ... Before his resignation over the Church's refusal to allow homosexual adoption, Meade was the Chair of Catholic Charities in Boston....

See Meade's column in the Boston Herald here.

VoteOnMarriage Failed the People

The VoteOnMarriage amendment went down in flames today, with an even more appalling result than anyone could have imagined. Prayers without compromising the truth may work. Prayers when the truth is compromised cannot.

VoteOnMarriage's campaign failed because the debate was boiled down to "letting the people vote" and ensuring "children have both a mother and a father." But it left out the important truth about homosexual "marriage": It's based on immoral and unhealthy sexual perversions. Morality and public health needed to be part of the debate.

But VoteOnMarriage (and its prime actor, Massachusetts Family Institute) never spoke about these issues. Why didn't they say plainly that disordered sexuality cannot become an accepted basis for "marriage"? And after compromising with Mitt Romney, they could hardly address preserving the integrity of our constitution, and the common accepted meaning of the words therein.

VoteOnMarriage depleted our side's energy and financial resources in pursuit of a terribly flawed amendment. We've warned about their failing strategy ("Be polite! Dialogue with the other side!") and compromised amendment wording for two years now. We said: "Don't feed the bears! They'll just come back for more and more. They'll smell your weakness. And they'll eat you alive."

But VoteOnMarriage said they had a good relationship with MassEquality. They spoke to the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows, badmouthed MassResistance to them and to people on Beacon Hill (including the last several governors) and to pro-family conservatives around the nation. They rigidly controlled what people said in their demonstrations, including their signs. It was a top-down movement, no real grassroots sentiments allowed. Time and again, as we walked through the VoteOnMarriage demonstrators, we would hear individuals corrected if they stepped out of line, said something "inappropriate" or with a little too much emotion.

Their strategy of endless compromise with evil, their attempted appeasement of those destroying the minds of children, and their puerile censorship of pro-family rhetoric has no origin in the Old or New Testament, and anyone who thinks otherwise has subconsciously blacked out the most powerful parts of the Holy Scriptures.

We hear from an MFI insider that they plan to regroup! How do you regroup with failed leadership, and a failed vision? Just a week ago, we heard that another MFI insider said the homosexual lobby was tiring out! They are detached from reality. They don't understand the foe we're facing.

When leaders fail to achieve their goal, they should be fired. VoteOnMarriage and the Massachusetts Family Institute have been discredited, they have failed the faithful pro-family people of Massachusetts. So we say to them: Don't ask for another penny, another drop of our blood and sweat.

Sodomy "Marriage" Not a Civil Right

Last week's editorial in The Pilot rationally explained why homosexual "marriage" is not about civil rights. ("Marriage is not a civil right", 6-8-07) But then, rationality and facts don't seem to count for much any more. Today's Globe makes it clear that "wavering" legislators are not rational, but swayed by emotional stories by lesbian "married" couples. ("A legislator finds himself tugged in two directions")

Sadly, even if it passes, the VoteOnMarriage amendment would not prevent the state's descent into lunacy. It would keep the "marriage" squabble alive, allowing current "homosexual marriages" (existing before the new amendment would take effect) to stand as valid. But then, MassEquality would argue -- rationally --that there can't be two classes of homosexuals: some allowed to marry, some not, because that would be a violation of federally guaranteed equality under the law.

Nevertheless, the Pilot editorial editorial is good as far as it goes:

Marriage is not a civil right
...[MassEquality's slogan is] “It’s wrong to vote on rights.” The underlying message is that since two people with homosexual orientation may love each other, they have the right to marriage.

First, we note that the very premise of the campaign is ludicrous. Let us not forget that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified through the votes of state legislatures. The very statement “It’s wrong to vote on rights” flies in the face of our entire system of government.

More importantly, however, marriage is not a right. Even civil marriage is a very restrictive contract that provides benefits for certain people expected to contribute to society in a particular way -- procreating and raising children. But even that is restricted for the good of society. A mother does not have the right to marry her son. Siblings cannot marry. Married persons cannot marry again without first obtaining a divorce. There is no civil right to marry anyone, at any time.

The consequences of separating marriage from procreation and redefining it as a civil right are far-reaching and catastrophic for the institution of marriage and for society at large. Once marriage becomes a personal right, the institution of marriage fades. It is only a matter of time before polygamy, polyandry, incestuous relations and all other manner of partnerships will be accepted as marriage. And why shouldn’t they be? After all, those engaged in those relationships will surely claim they are as much “loving partners” as anyone else and that they deserve to have their relationships legally recognized.

Another very real consequence of the judicial decision that legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2004 is the presumption that all sexual lifestyles are equal. If gay couples can marry, the obvious conclusion -- already evident by recent court decisions -- is that schools should teach that homosexual behavior is fully equivalent to heterosexual behavior. Children will have to learn, as they already are in some school districts, that all lifestyle choices are equal....

Will Children Be Safe at State House?

The Globe reports that our Secretary of State is worried about the safety of children on field trips at the State House tomorrow, during the Constitutional Convention on the marriage amendment. See "Pupil tours to feature democracy in action: But steps planned to skirt protesters" (6-13-07).

The unexpected confluence has prompted Secretary of State William Galvin to take steps to ensure that the impressionable youngsters will not be exposed to any mischief or chaos that may erupt during the intense debates and large demonstrations. Unlike most other State House visitors tomorrow, the children will enter the building through a rear door and be greeted by park rangers who will provide security and shepherd them through the building ...

"I do think it can be a constructive lesson, if both sides, the activists for and against gay marriage, are civil to one another," Galvin said. "We anticipate that the adults involved in the debate will be respectful to each other and also to the guests at the State House who are students. ... It's a classic, classic example of free speech and action on a controversial issue, no matter which side you are looking at," said a statement he issued yesterday.

Now this seems very odd to us. First, why are passions so high on the street? We don't see anything like this surrounding budget debates, do we? It's not a "classic example of free speech and action on a controversial issue." Our society has never seen anything so lunatic and perverted parading as legitimate political speech. (But the students will not be exposed to that viewpoint.)

This is really about a fringe minority forcing an insane change of the definition of marriage on society. That is what's dangerous to children. It's the people with the rainbow flags and the damage they are doing to society. Yet the Globe story makes it sound like bad things could emanate from either side in this "debate" tomorrow.

Maybe the schools should have cancelled their field trips. Would we want kids observing demonstrations for the legalization of polygamy and prostitution, or lowering the age of sexual consent? Surely those issues will all be pushed by the rainbow-flag group in the next few years. (See the Gay Rights Platform from 1972, which calls for all of these goals.) We already have a lobby for "transgender" rights. But just now, most Massachusetts citizens, asleep as they are, might still object to their kids being immersed in demonstrations for those "rights".

But tomorrow we'll see school officials blinking at -- or speaking favorably for -- sodomy-based marriage. They believe it's perfectly OK for the kids to think about what a same-sex "marriage" bed is all about. This is just a normal day at the State House, the schools will tell their pupils -- it's just a debate about "love" and "equal rights". The colorful rainbow flags will draw the kids in. And our Secretary of State pretends to be worried about the safety of children.

Former Gov. Bill Weld, Mentor to Romney, Will Make Calls vs. Marriage Amendment

We continue to wonder why the supposed pro-real-marriage crowd (Mass. Family Institute, Mass. Catholic Conference, Mass. Citizens for Life) didn't stand up for the first and BETTER* marriage amendment, instead of letting the Legislature and acting Gov. Swift throw it in the trash in 2002?

And why didn't our supposedly pro-marriage former Governor, Mitt Romney, ever address the issue when he took office in January 2003? The first marriage amendment was arguably still alive then, but Romney said it was "too extreme" -- because it banned civil unions! (Romney went on to twist arms among Republican legislators, getting them to vote for the failed Travaglini-Lees amendment which would have created civil unions.)

Romney's mentor, former Gov. Bill Weld, has decided to stick his nose into the current marriage amendment mess. State House News reports:

Former Gov. Bill Weld held an afternoon visit with House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, whose chamber is home to the vast majority of the pro-amendment votes. The two-term Republican governor said he might call legislators Wednesday in an effort to influence votes against the ban, which was generated by about 170,000 Bay State citizens' signatures. ...

Weld said he hopes the measure doesn't advance to the popular ballot because "I think it's going be a distraction for the next 18 months if it does get put on the ballot, and I think the best way to handle it is just to get rid of it right now." Weld infuriated gay marriage supporters two years ago when he was running for governor of New York by saying he opposed the expansion of gay marriage outside Massachusetts. Making at least his second appearance in the State House in the last week, Weld said he was in the capitol on behalf of Lehman Brothers, the global finance firm, but said it was not to lobby. In 2003, shortly after the state Supreme Judicial Court delivered the ruling that led to the practice of gay marriage here, Weld endorsed the decision, and later officiated at a same-sex marriage.

Why would a nominal Republican be concerned if the amendment were still an issue for the next 18 months? We thought it was just the Democrats who wanted it to go away, so as not to hurt their vote in the 2008 election.

Meanwhile, Senate President Murray is still counting heads, and won't decide until Thursday morning whether or not to hold the vote.

State House News reports (June 12):
Murray said she expected to vote Thursday, but didn't know whether the gay marriage proponents have swayed the handful of votes needed to draw support for the amendment below the 50-vote threshold. ...
Asked if she would still call for a vote if she were unsure of the result, Murray replied, "We'll decide on Thursday." In May, Murray, responding to reporters' questions about whether she thought there would be a vote on the amendment in June, said, "Well, we're going to ask for one." Asked about the discrepancy, Murray spokeswoman Samantha Dallaire said, "The decision is up to the membership" on how to proceed Thursday.

[*Our position on the current VoteOnMarriage amendment: We DON'T like the wording (allowing current homosexual "marriages" to stand; not banning civil unions). But we DO respect the process: The Constitution provides for referendum petitions, VoteOnMarriage got the signatures, and the legislators are required to vote. And bribery is against the law. But its passage would not solve our problem. We'd still have "homosexual marriages" recognized by the Mass. Constitution, and civil unions could follow.]

Senate Pres. Murray Unlikely to Allow Marriage Amendment Vote

We all know what's coming. Immediately after Senator Therese Murray's elevation to Senate President yesterday, Mass. Family Institute released an email alert. They know their VoteOnMarriage amendment is in serious danger again.

Outgoing Senate Pres. Travaglini apparently just kicked the can down the road when he forced the marriage amendment vote on January 2, contrary to expectations. Delaying tactics. He wasn't really for the citizens' rights. He just wanted to go out with a "clean" record, and string pro-family citizens along for a while. Defuse things a bit.

The VoteOnMarriage people are right to worry. Look at the people Murray hires: A major MassEquality operative is now her executive assistant -- a radical allied with QueerToday. (See our report on MassResistance.) Marc Solomon, head of MassEquality, "said the group was pleased to see a like-minded legislator would be wielding the gavel," according to State House News.

Regular readers of this blog know that we don't like the weak wording of the VoteOnMarriage amendment. But we are in absolute agreement that it must be voted on by the Legislature.

Murray on the marriage amendment (Boston Globe, 3-22-07): Though a strong supporter of same-sex marriage, she declined to say whether she would require an up-or-down vote on a constitutional ban when she presides over the Constitutional Convention this spring or whether she would allow it to be defeated with procedural maneuvers. "I haven't even discussed that with myself," she told reporters.

State Senator Brian Joyce (quoted in Bay Windows, 3-22-07): As state Sen. Brian A. Joyce points out, Murray’s position as Senate president means that the three most powerful figures on Beacon Hill — Murray, House Speaker Sal DiMasi and Gov. Deval Patrick — “are all foursquare against discrimination.” Under those circumstances, added the Milton Democrat, “I’m hard-pressed to see a scenario whereby this matter advances.” The leadership changes in both the Senate and the corner office, along with the increased acceptance of marriage equality as time has passed, leave Joyce “cautiously optimistic” that the amendment will soon be “dying a peaceful death.”

Mass. Family Institute email alert (3-20-07): Now [Murray] decides if the legislature will have a fair vote on the marriage amendment at the Constitutional Convention this May 9. The state high court said the constitution requires a vote on the marriage amendment. But as an avowed supporter of same sex marriage, will politics get in Therese Murray's way?

Take Action NOW! Call Senate President Therese Murray at (617) 722-1330. Tell her that as Senate President, she now represents ALL the people. Tell her she is free to vote "no" on the marriage amendment. But she is constitutionally obligated to hold a vote on this important, citizen-initiated amendment.

Plotters Still Trying to Scuttle Marriage Amendment

THE GLBT LOBBYING TEAM:

Bill Conley, MGLPC ("on leave" after disgraceful arrest for sexual solicitation)

Norma Shapiro, ACLU

Arline Isaacson, MGLPC and Mass. Teachers' Association

Of course it's hard predicting the wily actions those with foul intentions are plotting. But when reading GLBT lobbyist Arline Isaacson's cagey quote in the Globe today ("Gay marriage outcome today uncertain," 1-2-07) . . .

"We don't know what's going to happen for sure, but it does seem certainly a possibility that a vote on the petition will take place.... Isaacson said supporters of same-sex marriage have not decided on a strategy for today's convention, mainly because legislators have been on holidays and it has been difficult to take a head count. She declined to discuss what tactics are being considered. But their most viable options include pushing another vote to adjourn the convention for the year or recessing it to midnight, when the session legally expires."

. . . we should bear in mind these words from Tom Lang, which appeared on a pro-GLBT hate blog on Dec. 28. (Lang is behind "KnowThyNeighbor", the initimidation site that posts all the marriage petition signers.) Keep them guessing, is Lang's message:

"... what is your opinion about us (the LGBT) announcing every move we are making politically? Handing out Profiles in Courage is great however do you feel that MEQ [MassEquality] should be doing press releases stating that we are asking leges to adjourn? I understand adjournment is the strategy but you understand the press and the otherside have a field day with this when it comes from its opposition. Aaron and I just yesterday took on Mineau and Paleologos on the radio. They threw in my face the BayWindows editorial which spelled out how much money the LGBT brought in for candidates and how these new leges "owe us."

"I mean think about it. This is a war. A war of strategies. Think about what happens everytime an embedded journalist leaks something during combat wars. I have always believed that it is best to keep the other side guessing...of course they find out but these announcements of strategies do us no favors."

(Now, Mr. Lang has asked to come on our MassResistance radio show on WTTT. Would he speak honestly about anything if we did have him on?)

The Globe is clear in its advocacy. Their lead editorial urges Legislators to refuse to vote again:

The SJC asserted clearly last week that the constitution directs the Legislature to vote on the substance of the amendment. But the court was also correct in saying it cannot force an independent branch to act. The only remedy for those who believe legislators are frustrating the constitution by refusing to vote, the court noted, is at the ballot box. Just so. Most legislators would take their chances with the voters in their own districts.... This is a moment for advancing civil rights, not retreating.

Open Letter to Rep. Jay Kaufman on His Vote to Violate Constitution & Commit Treason

To: Rep. Jay Kaufman (15th Middlesex district)
From: Robert Paine, Esq.
Re: Your editorial on your illegal vote to recess the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention without voting on the marriage amendment

(Link to Kaufman's editorial: "A Difficult Vote, An Easy Judgement" [sic] )

You wrote, Representative Kaufman:

"The Constitution obligates legislators to exercise judgment on which proposed Constitutional matters are placed before the electorate for a vote. The two-step legislative review prescribed by the Constitution would be meaningless if John Adam’s intent had been for the Constitutional Convention to serve simply as a pass-through agency for voter initiatives."

I have practiced law for many years, during which time I've frequently argued before the SJC. I've been consulted on constitutional law by high officials of the federal government, asked to write federal legislation with major constitutional implications, and asked by a sitting Congressman to run for Congress. I work on and have personally won cases with national impact and international publicity and -- without exaggeration -- I've done considerably more research on the court rulings pertinent to "homosexual marriage" and the relevant parts of the Massachusetts Constitution than all members of the Legislature, their staffs, and Governor Romney and his staff, combined. Sad to say, this is not even much of a boast, since previous court rulings and the Constitution itself have hardly been consulted on the matter of homosexual marriage.

Allow me to correct your fatuous and idle boast. The Constitution very clearly orders you and our other servants to vote on the floor on any amendment brought before you that has met the constitutional requirements. You swore in the name of God, not only to obey, but to uphold and defend that Constitution. Your failure and that of your smug, dishonest, hypocritical colleagues is an act of criminal perjury -- a felony.

Despite your legally absurd rationalizations, you are in the act of conspiring against the foundation of democracy, against the supreme law of this Commonwealth, the social compact that distinguishes the law-abiding from the outlaw. You are committing a felony which is punishable by time in prison and disbarment from elective office. Two generations ago, before it became cute to hijack democracy from your superiors, the sovereign people, you would have been arrested, convicted and imprisoned. The Founding Fathers would have tried you not only for criminal perjury, but also for sedition. If you do not know the meaning of that word and have no dictionary, here is its meaning: treason.

In your self-righteous defense of sodomy "marriage," the outrageous preferences currently being given to homosexuals in adoption and foster-parent proceedings, and violation of childhood and parents' rights by schoolroom sodomy propaganda, you are sabotaging our republican form of government in which the people, not you, are sovereign.

Your right is to vote "yea" or "nay." But you have no "right" to violate the people's sovereignty or to betray their constitution with your lies. Even "Justice" Margaret Marshall and her outlaw judges on the SJC had enough honesty to admit what your are lying about: They ruled in 2002 that Senate President Birmingham had violated the Constitution when he took his turn at treason -- in exactly the same sort of criminal conspiracy you are now involved in. How short are the memories of liars. Young American soldiers and sailors have died to defend the right of self-government and the constitutions that you are trashing.

You are a fraud. I have no idea whether you believe in a God or not, but you swore a solemn oath followed by "So help me God." In lying to others and to yourself now, you are unable to hide the obvious: You took the name of the Lord God in vain and thus, when your time is up in this world, you will answer not only for your criminal conspiracy against my children's and your children's constitution, their democratic rights, their culture, their innocence and their future. You will answer also for the arrogance of your cosmic lie which echoes its dishonesty from one end of the universe to the other, takes up residence within you and will grow like a parasite within your soul. You mock the name of the Lord God who made your flesh, breathed life into you and in whose name you swore a sacred oath.

Representative Kaufman, you and your distinguished partners in this high crime against current and future generations will answer for your part in condemning children to the ruthless, arrogant, blind experimentation of childhoods defined by intentional deprivation of one of the two distinct kinds of parents that Nature and Nature's God intended for them. Their fingers will point at you when your time comes. You will never escape their piercing eyes.

None of us are so stupid as to think you believe this nonsense you are claiming as an excuse to commit a felony. Here it is again. Your own lies will ring in your ears forever: "The two-step legislative review prescribed by the Constitution would be meaningless if John Adam’s intent had been for the Constitutional Convention to serve simply as a pass-through agency for voter initiatives."

The two-step review that John Adams wrote into the Constitution compels two votes on the amendment itself. That is the purpose of a Constitutional Convention. Were it not so, Maggie Marshall, a felon-conspirator herself, most assuredly would have told you so. Look in the mirror and ask why American servicemen and women are now dying to protect a constitutional system of self-government that you are subverting. Some day, your children or grandchildren may ask you that question. If not, the souls of dead American heroes going back more than two centuries will ask, and so will the God who gave the inalienable rights that you, like the communists and Nazis, steal from your fellow man.

Reread the "Rights of the Inhabitants" portion which John Adams made the basis of the entire form of government. It should expose as a silly lie your ridiculous claim that our public servants have the right to stop us from modifying our form of government.

Article IV. The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves...and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right (not) by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress...
Article V. All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the...officers of government...legislative, executive, or judicial, are...are at all times accountable to them.
Article VII. ...the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to...reform, alter, or totally change the (government)...

Why did John Adams make this the basis of the Constitution that you are now subverting with lies and cowardice and conspiracy?

Article VIII. "In order to prevent those, who are vested with authority, from becoming oppressors..."

Adams, like Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and so many others, knew that the likes of you, Rep. Jay Kaufman, would show up sooner or later, and that the people might not be prepared for your deceits. You, sir, are the enemy within. Look in the mirror and you will see that of which our Founding Fathers warned when they included in the Federal oath of office the phrase (I will defend the Constitution) ... "from enemies, domestic and foreign."

May God have mercy on the souls of those selling the innocence and the inalienable rights of their own children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren in return for the worthless approval from the lawless barbarians tearing down our Constitution and our society.

Sincerely,
Robert Paine, Esquire

Officials Who Violate Their Oath of Office Are Guilty of a Crime

By John Haskins

Under the Massachusetts Constitution, any public official who swears the oath of office and then willingly violates that oath it is subject to the criminal penalties of perjury -- a felony. That includes Governor Mitt Romney, much of the legislature, at least four judges on the Supreme Judicial Court, as well as Attorney General Tom Reilly, who has a duty to file criminal perjury charges against those now violating the Massachusetts oath of office. In an era of bolder citizenship and stronger, more serious Christianity, they would be subjected to citizen's arrest by a great troop of armed Massachusetts citizens, and they would be convicted and imprisoned for what they are now doing.

Obviously, the Massachusetts Constitution is not discriminating in the below article against Quakers by holding them to a higher legal standard or subjecting them to more severe criminal punishment for the same act. Therefore the meaning is plain and inescapable: Failure to "bear true faith and allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts" and to "support the constitution thereof" is a crime.

Article VI. Instead of the oath of allegiance prescribed by the constitution, the following oath shall be taken and subscribed by every person chosen or appointed to any office, civil or military under the government of this commonwealth, before he shall enter on the duties of his office, to wit:

"I, A. B., do solemnly swear, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts , and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God."
Provided, That when any person shall be of the denomination called Quakers, and shall decline taking said oath, he shall make his affirmation in the foregoing form, omitting the word "swear" and inserting instead thereof the word "affirm;" and omitting the words "So help me God," and subjoining, instead thereof, the words "This I do under the pains and penalties of perjury." [see Constitution, chapter VI, Art. I].

Article VII. No oath, declaration or subscription, excepting the oath prescribed in the preceding article and the oath of office shall be required of the governor, lieutenant governor, councilors, senators or representatives, to qualify them to perform the duties of their respective offices.

Romney: Call Legislature Back Into Session!

On the rally at the State House last Sunday (Nov. 19), we ask: Why didn't Romney call the Legislature back into session then -- if necessary, with the help of State Troopers? The 109 Legislators who voted to recess violated their oaths to follow the Constitution by refusing to vote on the citizens' petition to define marriage.

Why did Romney just announce his appeal to the courts? The clock is ticking... Does he really think that his lawsuit -- filed with the same Supreme Judicial Court that issued the "Goodridge" opinion -- will accomplish anything? And even if the Court rules the right way (as it did in Dec. 2002, on the Pawlick marriage amendment, to no avail), only the Governor can enforce bringing the Legislators back to vote.

The Governor can be reached at 617-725-4005. Time to demand he call the Legislature back!

Here are observations from our friend, the Rev. Michael Carl, on the State House rally on Nov. 19:

Greetings,

Why don't we take a survey to find out if we the people will bombard Romney's office, demanding that he exercise his Constitutional authority to announce that Goodridge v. the State Board of Health is null and void.

According to the Massachusetts Constitution, Part Two, Chapter Three, Article V,
"All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony, and all appeals from the judges of probate shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision."

The Governor is the Constitutional officer responsible for settling marriage issues. Thus, Romney had, and has until January 2, the power to act to tell the world that the SJC's opinion in Goodridge v. the State Board of Health is illegal, unconstitutional, and an blight on the legal and moral landscape of this Commonwealth and the nation in which we are a member. He also has the constitutional authority to call the Legislature back into special session and prescribe that they take a vote on the people's amendment.

Why are we so mild and weak? Why don't we have a measure of nerve that's at least as big as that of the folks in the homosexual lobby? The editor of Bay Windows boldly claimed that the legislature owed them their willing disregard of the Constitution. She demanded that the Legislature disobey the law, something they were only too willing to do!!! If the editor of a publication serving the immoral in our society can make such a bold demand, why can't we be at least as assertive in our cause of righteousness? It's time that we take an aggressive stand and demand that our weak-kneed, spineless, waffling officials tell the homosexuals where to get off!!! What in the world is wrong with us? Have we lost our nerve? Don't we have the courage of our convictions? Why can't we see that we're fighting for the soul of our nation? What is it going to take before we will finally open our eyes to see that our elected officials are happily playing the fiddle while our nation burns around them?

We are going to lose this battle, if we haven't already, and we're still gullible enough to believe Romney cares. He's grandstanding again. He stood up on the State House steps holding out a meatless bone to entice us into thinking he really wants to do something about the homosexual marriage issue. He's still doing the same thing the rest of the amoral, gutless wonders in the GOP have done for over a decade. They've courted the "Values Voters" with hollow platitudes and an endless number of empty pontifications. When are we going to realize that the GOP regarded us as being equal to the Capitol staircases--something to walk on while they climbed the rungs of power?

Look where it got us. Nowhere. All we got was one little piece of federal legislation that yes, outlawed an extremely grisly procedure. Yet, that law only covered a small fraction of the total number of babies slaughtered in our abortion mills every year. And that law was thrown out by a couple of black-robed, tin-horned federal potentates within a month or two of its signing. The culture is sliding further into the moral abyss as we in Massachusetts are still willing to dance with a milquetoast, lame-duck governor whose eyes are filled with the twinkle of White House-shaped stars.

The time for whistles and bells is over. It's now time to act.

Rev. Michael Carl
Lynn , Massachusetts
Constitution Party of Mass., Co-Chairman
"All things are possible for him who believes" (Mark 9:23)

Constitutional Amendments Defining Marriage Questioned

Conservatives should keep "gay marriage" out of the courts, say two lawyers who served in the Justice Dept. under Presidents Reagan and Bush I.

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey argue in an op-ed in the New York Times (11-17-06) that constitutional amendments defining marriage are a bad idea. It is a matter which should be left to state legislatures. Indeed, the very fact that even our hideously liberal legislators here in Massachusetts have still not passed a statute legalizing homosexual marriage says a lot about the wisdom of this. Our legislators haven't had the nerve to bring it to the floor for debate and vote, and they're hoping that no one notices this has not yet be done!

Once our side concedes that a basic concept such as marriage needs to be further defined in a constitution, we're in trouble. Especially in Massachusetts, where the constitution actually refers to marriage, and therefore already assumes the traditional meaning of marriage, our constitution does not need amending! (And the current VoteOnMarriage proposal would just open up a new can of worms, allowing current homosexual "marriages" and civil unions. By not nullifying these concepts, the amendment would imply that they are acceptable.) When will we have to start defining concepts such as parent, or religion, or education in constitutional amendments? Where will it stop? From the op-ed:

...Moreover, the meaning of marriage, as important as it is, is no more crucial than many other issues of individual autonomy and morality that have also historically been decided by the legislatures. These include adoption and child-welfare laws, as well as a host of criminal and other regulatory measures of the greatest moment.

Indeed, cluttering state constitutions with the disposition of many difficult social issues — and this process will probably go on, and even accelerate, especially if all of the states choose to define marriage in their constitutions — is likely to empower the judiciary more. This paradoxical and unwelcome result would arise because some of the newly enshrined constitutional definitions and guarantees are sure to conflict with one another, leaving the courts the only venue for resolving the tension. Conservatives should find this outcome highly unpalatable....

If state legislatures were free to define and re-define marriage, we would have genuinely political solutions to an especially difficult and incendiary issue. Very few people do not hold deep convictions regarding same-sex marriage. To enshrine the definition of marriage in a state’s constitution removes the issue from the give-and-take of the normal political process. That process rarely produces an absolute victory for any side, but it also rarely results in absolute defeat. The outcome is never final; the defeated party can rally, regroup and try again....

By contrast, a constitutional amendment resolves a policy issue with a sufficient finality to prompt a more or less permanent sense of injustice and bitterness on the losing side....

Romney Calls Rally to Show He Cares about Constitution

What a laugh. Now Gov. Romney and VoteOnMarriage announce a rally for the DEAD marriage amendment this Sunday 11/19. Looks like another pre-presidential campaign event to us. We hope pro-family activists are wiser than to fall for it.

If Romney really cared about the Constitution, and his oath to uphold it, he wouldn't have single-handedly implemented homosexual "marriages" back in 2004. If he really cared, he'd correct this error before he leaves office.

Watch out America: You can't trust Romney.

Mass. Legislature: Bought by MassEquality

So -- Do we or do we not have a problem with "special interests" controlling our government? Whoever has the most money, and the least ethical practices, wins?

Here's Rep. Kathi-Anne Reinstein whooping it up with Marc Solomon, head of MassEquality, after the 109 sell-outs voted to recess and defy the Constitution at the ConCon on Nov. 9. (Also in photo center, in blue suit: Rep. Marty Walz.)

They look like such nice young people, don't they?
[Photo: EdgeBoston.com]

Romney and the Errant Legislators

The Boston Globe reports today, "Leaders seek to kill gay marriage ban; goal is recess without a vote."

Will Romney have the courage to call the Legislature back into session if they adjourn without taking up the VoteOnMarriage amendment today? We doubt it. We've written before about the hollow oath he took to uphold our Constitution. After all, he is the one who, in defiance of the Constitution, implemented homosexual "marriages" through his issuance of rewritten marriage licenses and orders to Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace, while the marriage statutes were never changed to allow this.

House Speaker DiMasi's plan for today is to take a vote to adjourn (he has the 101 votes needed for that) before getting to item #20 on the calendar, the VoteOnMarriage amendment. But they may very well make it to item #19, the other marriage amendment, which would need 50%+ (101) to pass, and thus could give cover to many legislators to "safely" vote for a ban on homosexual "marriage" prior to adjourning. Senate President Travaglini, in charge of the proceedings today,

... said yesterday he would entertain a motion to recess or adjourn, even before a vote is taken on the marriage amendment. His comments appear to be a shift in his position from earlier this year, when he said he intended to make sure a recorded vote was taken on the amendment. [Which amendment, #19 or #20?]

"Whatever action the body decides to do will be done by a recorded vote," Travaglini said in an interview yesterday, when asked about a motion to recess. "I will entertain that motion. I will not influence anyone how to vote."

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:

• 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.

Whatever happens, even the UNLIKELY final scenario, the VoteOnMarriage amendment is going to go down in flames eventually. It may take a few years, but it will happen. What better way to suck the blood of their opponents than to string them along over the next few years, exhausting their time, energy, money, good faith, hope. The GLBT strategy is to get the innocent VoteOnMarriage supporters to continue to focus on their amendment -- rather than defending our Constitution, removing the judges responsible for the Goodridge ruling, holding Romney responsible for unnecessarily issuing marriage licenses and ordering state officials to perform weddings, and dealing with the homosexual propaganda taking over our schools.

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."