LIBEL by New York Times

by J. Edward Pawlick

Order Yours Now!

By MassNews Staff

   The state legislature approved an amendment yesterday that no one will want to vote for.

   One of the good guys in this battle, Rep. Vinny DeMacedo (R-Kingston) explains, “‘No problem, you can vote to define marriage as between a man and a woman, but the only way you can do so is by creating civil unions that are entirely the same as marriage.’ Ultimately, if this ever makes it to the ballot, it will fail.”

   But the legislators covered all the bases in their own interest. Representatives and Senators are now able to say that they voted to define marriage as a man and a woman, at the same time giving the homosexual lobby all the legal trappings of marriage without the title. (The title would come in a few more years.) At the same time, they were able to console the homosexual lobby that opposition to so-called “civil unions” from traditionalists would undoubtedly result in the rejection of the amendment at the ballot box.

   Yesterday’s vote was a defeat for those who recognize that marriage has always been one man and one woman. And despite the pleadings of Governor Romney, the Supreme Judicial Court is not going to postpone implementation of the Goodridge decision.

The Good News
   Despite the betrayal and the defeat in yesterday’s vote, there is good news.

   One piece of good news is that the forces of moral and political perversion remain afraid of MassNews readers. They know you are in the majority. If they believed they were in the majority, they wouldn’t have been afraid to give a straight up-or-down vote on the definition of marriage. Yesterday was yet another confirmation of who is in the mainstream and who are the extremists (the homosexual lobby, the Boston Globe, the radical feminists at NOW who believe that traditional marriage is damaging to women, other extreme liberals who wish to impose Swedish type socialism and some Beacon Hill politicians who like the sound of money and its ensuing power). The fact that there were as many homosexual protesters in front of Beacon Hill yesterday as traditionalists meant only that they have more paid organizers than traditionalists.

   The more important good news is that the charade is over, and the new Article 8 Alliance is poised to gear up its efforts for the people to remove the judges under the leadership of Brian Camenker.

   The constitutional amendment would have treated symptoms only, rather than the problem itself. And the problem is that Massachusetts has four Supreme Judicial Court justices who believe they can amend the constitution by imperial decree.

   Those four SJC justices have taken total legislative power upon themselves, while admitting that all precedent, law, original intent and common law tradition has already defined marriage as one man and one woman. “We have recognized the long-standing statutory understanding, derived from the common law, that ‘marriage’ means the lawful union of a woman and a man,” Chief Justice Margaret Marshall conceded in the majority opinion in Goodrich v. Department of Public Health. “Certainly, our decision today marks a significant change in the definition of marriage as it has been inherited from the common law, and understood by many societies for centuries.”

   The three dissenting SJC judges concluded “what is at stake is … the power of the legislature to effectuate social change without interference from the courts.” These justices rightly said that the Goodridge decision was a direct attack on the separation of powers, citing Article 30 of the state constitution’s Declaration of Rights, which states that “the judicial [department] shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers … to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.”

At Long Last, a Meaningful Vote
   At long last, those favoring traditional marriage can concentrate their efforts on eliminating the problem in the body politic: the “SJC 4,” those four Supreme Judicial Court justices who voted on November 17 to promulgate the Goodridge opinion.

   A vote to remove the infamous “SJC 4” will preclude any so-called “compromises.” The vote will have to be up-or-down. There will be no place for scheming politicians to hide on this vote.

   One final piece of good news is that traditional marriage supporters, as they begin to seek removal of the SJC 4, will likely find new allies. Many people with little interest in marriage can understand the dangerous precedent in allowing unelected judges with lifelong tenure to exercise a power to amend the constitution by edict. Everyone, except the most extreme partisans, can understand that separation of powers is what separates the stable American system of governance from banana republics and other governments constantly besieged with coups and revolution.

   They can also understand people like Senator Brian Lees who led the fight with Tom Birmingham in 2002 to violate the state Constitution and then had the nerve in 2004 to reappear as the leader of the infamous “compromise” Amendment.

   It’s time now to begin a movement in earnest that will restore the rule of law in Massachusetts.

   Remove the SJC 4!

Now Let’s Have a Meaningful Vote
   Now it’s time for a meaningful vote!

   In order to win, all it will take is 21 votes in the Senate (which has 40 members) and 81 votes in the House (160 members), a total of 102 votes, to remove Margaret Marshall and her three friends from the SJC.

   That total is less than the 105 Legislators who voted for the Amendment yesterday.

   If we do this, we won’t have to worry about the Amendment again because we will be in control of the Court.

   That’s worth thinking about.

   Margaret Marshall and her friends will be gone by May 1 if you stay active.

© Copyright 2004 Massachusetts News. All Rights Reserved.

Archives  |  Letters  |  Bookshop
About Us    |  Local Papers  |   Selected Sites  |  Government