Replies

As far as I know, Mass cannot amend the constitution in anywhere close to 180 days. I've been doing some research but I'm still not sure if there are any other avenues of blocking this ruling.

The one thing that has been brought up is that the court gave no "or else" What happens if the legislature DOESN'T change their laws in 180 days?

As for trying it for two years, there is no way that after two years of homosexual marriage happening it could be taken away. It has to stopped before the fact or the odds of doing anything about it get pretty low.

Did the court say they have to issue marriage licenses or that they have to "adress" the issue. I would say they have "adressed" the issue. They have put it before the voters in the most expeditious manner.

I think the 180 is an effort to force Mass to have homosexual marriage at least for two years. This will give the homosexualists (new word) a "so what" argument.

#####As far as I know, Mass cannot amend the constitution in anywhere close to 180 days.#####

You mean the VOTERS and their ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES can't amend the Massachusettes state constitution within 180 days. Unfortunately, the advocates of gay marriage didn't have to worry about that. They had four friendly judges who simply amended the state constitution by decree with this gay marriage ruling.

This is one of the most damaging loopholes in our generally excellent system of government. The Founding Fathers of our nation, as well as those of the state of Massachusetts, assumed good behavior on the part of judges. They made amending the constitution difficult, requiring super majorities, to keep amendments from being ratified without broad popular support. But such a system presumes that judges won't usurp power from the bench. Unfortunately, the do and they have.

So we now have a situation where liberal judges simply impose liberal policies on the country. If proponents of gay marriage lack the votes to enact their agenda, then pro-gay marriage judges go searching through the existing constitution, find some vague passage ratified decades or even two centuries ago, and "interpret" it as mandating gay marriage (even though the people who originally wrote and ratified that passage never in their wildest fantasies thought they were legalizing gay marriage).

This has happened over and over on numerous issues, ranging from abortion to the death penalty to sodomy laws. And it never happens in the other direction. No court ever finds a conservative political agenda item to be mandated by the constitution.

So liberals can get their laws passed, and their constitutional changes made, without even having majority support, let alone super majorities. Then we, as conservatives, sit here worrying about whether we can get a super majority to put the constitution back to what it was in the first place.