Obviously there is something in the state constitution that needs a correction. Massachusetts isn't at the mercy of its judges. It's at the mercy of its voters, the people. If they want to amend their constitution, they have the power. This is absolutely all about nothing.
Did you know that the people of Massachusetts submitted petitions to put the issue before the voters two of years ago? The Democrat controlled legislature has been thwarting the right of the people to have the Marriage Amendment on the ballot since then.
In MA the Commonwealth's Constitution is being held hostage by the homosexual lobby!
Here's an excerpt from a letter which MA Gov. Romney sent to all US Senators. He explains very well why the Marriage Amendment is needed:
Excerpt:
Although the full impact of same-sex marriage may not be measured for decades or generations, we are beginning to see the effects of the new legal logic in Massachusetts just two years into our state’s social experiment. For instance, our birth certificate is being challenged: same-sex couples want the terms “Mother” and “Father” replaced with “Parent A” and “Parent B.”
In our schools, children are being instructed that there is no difference between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage. Recently, parents of a second grader in one public school complained when they were not notified that their son’s teacher would read a fairy tale about same-sex marriage to the class. In the story, a prince chooses to marry another prince, instead of a princess. The parents asked for the opportunity to opt their child out of hearing such stories.
In response, the school superintendent insisted on “teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same sex marriage is legal.” Once a society establishes that it is legally indifferent between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, how can one preserve any practice which favors the union of a man and a woman?
Some argue that our principles of federalism and local control require us to leave the issue of same sex marriage to the states—which means, as a practical matter, to state courts.
Such an argument denies the realities of modern life and would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. Marriage is not just an activity or practice which is confined to the border of any one state.
It is a status that is carried from state to state. Because of this, and because Americans conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions, a national definition of marriage is necessary.
Your vote on this amendment should not be guided by a concern for adult rights. This matter goes to the development and well-being of children. I hope that you will make your vote heard on their behalf.
I did read the letter from Romney earlier. I sympathize with his inability to get much out of his legislature, but understand, given its very liberal character. But as you noted the problem is with the legislature, not the judiciary. The state supreme court ruled that the constitution was being violated. Immediately a corrective amendment was prepared, but the
legislature is the problem at this point.
The FMA will say that the Massachusetts constitution actually doesn't require something the judiciary of the state says it does. Can you not see the constitutional crisis this creates in any state such as Massachusetts? The three branches of government in the state will no longer be equal. You will argue that it is the fault of the judiciary, but it is not. The judiciary cannot stop a constitutional amendment from being enacted to cure the problem.
Taking it one step farther, the FMA would say that no state constitution can be construed to require same sex marriages. But what if the state wants to put that into their constitution, and enact laws persuant to that? What is the legal standing of a judge who follows the US Constituion and refuses to legalize the same sex marriage, but is violating the laws of his own state? The homosexual lobby is not holding the state hostage. The people can still vote and it is their representatives who are failing to move the amendment through the statehouse, not the gay lobby.