Posted on 02/06/2004 5:28:21 AM PST by Redcoat LI
Time to make SJC judges pay for indecent proposal By Howie Carr Recent Columns by Howie Carr Friday, February 6, 2004
The Legislature needs to OK not one but two amendments to the state constitution next week.
The first one to outlaw this abomination of ``gay marriage.''
The second to mandate the election of judges, starting with the four members of the SJC who are so hellbent on sacrificing marriage on the altar of Political Correctness.
Everyone should have a chance to vote, and the majority will rule. Is that OK with you, Arline and Barney and Cheryl and Jarrett?
You know, it's easy to be courageous when the fight is fixed, and you have nothing on the line. Do you think any of the Fab Four would consider sacrificing their judicial sinecures for the Provincetown bed & breakfast industry?
Thirty-eight states already have said no to this nonsense, and one has endorsed the end of marriage. Welcome to Sodom and Begorrah.
Things here are so topsy-turvy that Gov. Mitt Romney has to begin an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal by arguing ``we should be able to agree that the citizens and their elected representatives must not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage.''
Unfortunately, this vote at the constitutional convention Wednesday, if it takes place at all, appears to be nothing more than a bit of feel-good fluff, at least for the moment. There can't be a referendum until 2006, by which time all of us will, as the homosexuals like to say, get used to it.
Yeah, right. The people who claim it won't be an issue in two years are the same ones who lied about being very confident they would win a referendum this year. They were so confident they'd win that in 2002 they ordered their Bulgerite stooge of a Senate president not to allow a vote on the amendment that would have put it on the ballot this year.
The quickest way to deal with this outrage would be in federal court - how would this insane decision affect, for instance, Social Security survivors' benefits? Or the inheritance tax - Paul Allen of Microsoft, for example, is worth billions, and he's not married. What's to stop him from ``marrying,'' say, his favorite niece's boyfriend, to save his estate $2 billion or $3 billion in death taxes?
But is it really in the Bush administration's interest to intervene here? The president said ``we must do what is legally necessary . . .''
But not right away. Because this ruling is the best political news the president has had in a month. Kerry looks like a gaffed flounder trying to fast-talk his way onto both sides of this issue. And wait until the mass weddings begin in P-town and Northampton and the South End. It'll play great in flyover country.
More likely, the first lawsuit will be filed by another state. Suppose Gerald Fitzpatrick marries Patrick Fitzgerald here in Sodomassachusetts, but they live and own property in New Hampshire. One of them dies, without a will, and the other claims the property as the ``survivor.'' But then the sister says they weren't really married, and that as the closest surviving relative, she should get the parcel. . . .
It will be chaos, as Speaker Tom Finneran said yesterday. Legal chaos. Which is of course what they want. They can't be married, really, and they know it, so no one else will be either. So there! Take that, you breeders.
This is all Bill Weld's fault, at bottom. He appointed Margaret Marshall, and Paul Cellucci promoted her to chief justice. Do you think John Silber ever would have picked such a PC princess?
But look on the bright side. There's going to be at least one good TV show to come out of all this - Gay Divorce Court.
( Howie Carr's radio show can be heard every weekday afternoon on WRKO-AM 680, WHYN-AM 560, WGAN-AM 560, WEIM-AM 1280, and WXTK 95.1 FM. )
Oh don't do that! I live just over your southern border in the north of the People's Republic of Taxachusetts. I come up there all the time to shop. Will probably be doing even more of that now, out of protest.
Hey, do you listen to Jay Severin on 96.9 FM in the afternoon? Believe me, there are some of us down here who are absolutely furious about what's going on in this state!
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Massachusetts ping list.
If Margaret Marshall was to "marry" her girlfriend, would it matter which of them strapped on the gizmo? Does "fisting" count? And by the same token, how difficult would it be to get such a "marriage" annulled? I mean, if one party claimed that the marriage was never consummated, who could argue?
A caller to his show the other day made a great point. One of the grounds for annulling a civil marriage is a failure to consumate the marriage. Obviously, this definition will have to change if homosexuals are allowed to "marry."
Do any legislators have the guts to write this legislation?
And how do lesbians consumate their "marriages"?
He can be very funny. Check out his streaming show (3-7 EST) at howiecarr.org or something like that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.