Cain condemns Massachusetts Supreme Court's assault on marriage

Cain for U.S. Senate Website ^

[ibi_libertas]

Today, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that they will accept nothing short of full marriage rights for same-sex couples. In doing so, the court clearly demonstrated their radical gay marriage agenda by rejecting the Massachusetts state legislatures attempts to find a compromise.

Responding to the Massachusetts ruling, U.S. Senate candidate Herman Cain said, “The courts have failed the American people. Congress needs to enact a constitutional amendment to protect the sacred institution of marriage.” Cain went on to say, “Liberal-minded judges have opened a floodgate of judicial tyranny that will chip away at the core values of this country until nothing sacred is left! It started with not allowing prayer in schools, not being able to display the Ten Commandments, attempting to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance and now making same-sex marriages legal.

“A constitutional amendment is needed to protect the definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.” Cain continued, “Our Founding Fathers had the foresight to have a constitutional separation of powers and these judges are overreaching their constitutional authority by rewriting legislation from the bench.

“Traditional families are the bedrock foundation of any healthy society. If we don’t act now all states could be forced to accept same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts.” Cain concluded, “We cannot allow this to happen! The long-term effects will further destroy the moral fabric of our society. Congress needs to take action on instituting a constitutional amendment to defend marriage now.”

Cain made it clear that defending marriage as the union of one man and one woman will be a top priority when he is elected to the United States Senate.

[ibi_libertas]

Take a look at what the man has to say now!! Go Herman!

[TheBigB]

I like this guy more and more. Hope he can take out Isakson in the primary.

[King Black Robe]

A guy with guts. He won't fit in with the current crowd, but he is just what we need.

[jwalsh07]

Just sent Mr Cain a donation. I wish him the best of luck. What are the dynamics of the primary down there?

[jwalsh07]

What are the dynamics between Isacckson and Cain?

[expatpat]

In my opinion, the Mass. legislature should say to the Court that it has overstepped its bounds, is infringing on the law-making prerogatives of the Legislative Branch, and that the latter will ignore their attempts to make law.

It's time the legislatures around this country got some cojones, invoked Separation of Powers, and told the Court to shove it..

[Diogenesis]

The Boston Globe has made clear that the New York Times, its writer Anthony Lewis and his wife,
the South-African-born-now-Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,
are simply smarter than the rest of us.

[jwalsh07]

Wrong legislature, wrong state, wrong issue. The legislature actually aided and abetted the backdoor to homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts. Ain't gonna happen.

[Pubbie]

Hopefully Cain is gaining momentum in GA.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Just sent Mr Cain a donation. I wish him the best of luck. What are the dynamics of the primary down there?"

---

I already contributed to Mr. Cain's campaign, and will donate some more this weekend. He's exactly what the people of Georgia---and of America as a whole---need in the Senate. He understands and respects our moral values and traditions, will work hard to substitute the federal income tax with a sales tax and to reform Social Security so that it's more akin to an IRA plan (this last point will be particularly important in attracting black votes to the GOP, since black men tend to die at a younger age than the rest of the population and thus forfeit most of the money they paid in Social Security taxes). And what will the Democrats say when the only black in the Senate is a conservative Republican?

The primary is basically a three-man fight between Herman Cain, Congressman Johnny Isakson (who is pro-abortion and has raised a gazillion dollars among country-club Atlanta Republicans) and Congressman Mac Collins (who, like Cain, is a solid conservative and would make a fine Senator). There is a fourth candidate, Al Bartell, but he hasn't picked up much traction and will either drop out before the July 20 primary or stay in the race and get 1% of the vote. Isakson is favored to get more votes in the primary than any of the others, but in Georgia primaries a candidate needs an outright majority (50%+1) to avoid a run-off, and with two solid conservatives such as Cain and Collins running hard and bringing conservatives to the polls, we can force Isakson into an August 10 run-off. Whoever makes the run-off between Cain and Collins will be favored against the pro-abortion Isakson. I hope Herman Cain makes the run-off and beats Isakson in the run-off and whomever the Democrats nominate in the general, but if Collins beats out Cain I will wholeheartedly support Collins.

[inquest]

Once again I have to ask people to please reconsider the can-o-worms being opened by proposing a constitutional amendment to redress a specific grievance. For those who are familiar with my arguments, I'm sorry to keep boring you, but it needs to be done. In particular:

1. Amendments are easier to pass than it may seem at first. The first requirement is a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress. That happens all the time. Just look at the margins by which the PATRIOT Act was passed: All but a small handful of votes in the lower house, and all but one in the Senate. And that's not unusual at all. The next requirement is the approval of the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. That's not difficult either. The (informally) proposed flag-burning amendment was brought before Congress by petitions from 49 state legislatures (including Massachusetts!). The only restraint on rampant amendments to the Constitution is that it's still considered somewhat taboo to tamper with our most basic document. Every time an amendment is proposed for the redress of a specific grievance, that taboo is eroded further, and the results can be unpredictable and catastrophic.

2. A constitutional amendment, far from rebuking activist judges, will actually encourage them further. By amending the Constitution, we're tacitly admitting (however much we protest to the contrary) that they had the correct interpretation of the Constitution prior to the amendment. By default, it will give them carte-blanche to do whatever else isn't specifically prohibited by special amendment. Their attitude will be that if we don't like their ruling, we can always amend the Constitution. Even under a dangerously expedited process, we won't be able to amend it faster than they can pump out bad rulings.

As for alternative remedies to the situation, we have:

1. Impeachment. As others have pointed out already, this would be very difficult politically. But the more we concentrate our efforts to that end, the more attainable it will be.

2. Restriction of appellate power. Congress has this power over the federal judiciary, as part of its ordinary powers. It should definitely make use of it. The appellate power is the stick by which the federal judiciary pushes states around.

3. And finally, states should just ignore unconstitutional rulings from federal courts. If Georgia is told that it must grant marriage benefits to a same-sex couple who were "married" in Massachusetts, Georgia should say to the ordering court, "After careful mature study of your decision, we've arrived at the conclusion that it's not worth a pile of mule dung, but you're welcome to try to enforce it here anyway. Regards, ".

[expatpat]

It looks that way superficially, and it wouldn't be anybody's first choice, but the Mass. politicians are getting very nervous. Even in liberal Massachusetts, the majority of the population seems to be against gay marriage, so the pols have to worry.

[jwalsh07]

My daughter and son in law live in Georgia along with their triplet. I'll see if I can't get Herman Cain a couple of votes in the primary. They won't vote for Isakson because he's a pro abort. I never heard of Collins but I looked at Cain's website and he looks just like what the doctor ordered.

[applemac_g4]

I too am a little afraid of what will happen if we start amending the constitution. After all, the patriot act reforms could have been proposed as consitutional amendments in the wake of 9-11 and we would have been stuck with them for a very long time.

The problem with impeachment is it's sort of like bug spray. It kills the critters, but not before they have a chance to bite you.

>2. Restriction of appellate power. Congress has this power
>over the federal judiciary, as part of its ordinary powers.
>It should definitely make use of it. The appellate power is
>the stick by which the federal judiciary pushes states
>around.

Could you elaborate on this idea a little bit more?

>3. And finally, states should just ignore unconstitutional
>rulings from federal courts. If Georgia is told that it
>must grant marriage benefits to a same-sex couple who were
>"married" in Massachusetts, Georgia should say to the
>ordering court, "After careful mature study of your
>decision, we've arrived at the conclusion that it's not
>worth a pile of mule dung, but you're welcome to try to
>enforce it here anyway. Regards, ".

This will result in a patchwork where blue states will comply and red ones won't...I don't think that's what we're going for.

I suppose there's another alternative - try and talk Osama into nuking Massachusettes...

[inquest]

The problem with impeachment is it's sort of like bug spray. It kills the critters, but not before they have a chance to bite you.

I think once we make some examples out of a few critters, the rest might start to get the message. These particular critters do have some limited cognitive capacity, after all ;-)

Could you elaborate on this idea a little bit more?

Under the Constitution (Article III, Section 2), the supreme court is given appellate jurisdiction in a list of areas, "with such exceptions" as Congress decides. And Article I gives Congress the power "to constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court", which involves the power to determine the jurisdiction of those courts. That all means that Congress can prohibit federal courts from hearing appeals from decisions of state courts in any type of matter that Congress decides.

So if a state disallows same-sex marriage, and the state courts uphold that policy, Congress can disallow any appeals to federal courts that would challenge those rulings. Theoretically, at least.

This will result in a patchwork where blue states will comply and red ones won't.

That's OK, though, because it still leaves states with the ability to defend themselves. And it will drive the pro-homosexualists up the wall, because they're just not happy unless they're in everyone's face everywhere. They can't stand the thought that some places aren't going along with their program. And the red states, as you term them, will provide an inspiration and example to the blue states that they don't have to be pushed around.

I suppose there's another alternative - try and talk Osama into nuking Massachusettes...

Umm, I have relatives there...

[ForOurFuture]

You make some good points. This talk of an amendment banning gay marriages is political pandering at its best. If they were serious about stopping activist judges, they'd block them from the bench and impeach the ones already there, not go around cleaning up the messes they make by amending the Constitution after the fact.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"My daughter and son in law live in Georgia along with their triplet. I'll see if I can't get Herman Cain a couple of votes in the primary."

---

I'm on my way to convincing my very pro-life aunt, who has lived in Rome, Georgia for a few years now, to vote for Cain in the primary. Had she been able to listen to him speak when he went to Rome last week, she would have already been 100% convinced, but unfortunately she had work commitments. That's the way we can get conservatives elected---one or two new votes at a time.

[Impy]

Isakson is a country club Republican who wants to be "the education senator" and Cain seriously rocks.