Maybe Romney has been in a coma?
Posted on 02/22/2004 1:11:22 PM PST by MegaSilver
A majority of Massachusetts residents oppose legalizing gay marriage.
That's according to a new poll in The Boston Sunday Globe that shows a significant change since the state's highest court ruled three months ago that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry.
The poll indicated opposition to gay marriage has jumped 10 percentage points since a poll taken just days after the Supreme Judicial Court's Nov. 18 ruling legalizing gay marriages.
In the new poll, 35 percent supported legalizing gay marriage and 53 percent were opposed. In the earlier poll, 48 percent supported legalizing gay marriages, while 43 percent were opposed.
The telephone survey of 400 adults conducted earlier this week has a margin of error of five percentage points.
No matter how you feel about gay marriage, 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. There are lessons from my state's experience that may help other states preserve the rightful participation of their legislatures and citizens, and avoid the confusion now facing Massachusetts.
In a decision handed down in November, a divided Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts detected a previously unrecognized right in our 200-year-old state constitution that permits same-sex couples to wed. I believe that 4-3 decision was wrongly decided and is deeply mistaken.Contrary to the court's opinion, marriage is not "an evolving paradigm." It is deeply rooted in the history, culture and tradition of civil society. It predates our Constitution and our nation by millennia. The institution of marriage was not created by government and it should not be redefined by government.
Marriage is a fundamental and universal social institution. It encompasses many obligations and benefits affecting husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter. It is the foundation of a harmonious family life. It is the basic building block of society: The development, productivity and happiness of new generations are bound inextricably to the family unit. As a result, marriage bears a real relation to the well-being, health and enduring strength of society.
Because of marriage's pivotal role, nations and states have chosen to provide unique benefits and incentives to those who choose to be married. These benefits are not given to single citizens, groups of friends, or couples of the same sex. That benefits are given to married couples and not to singles or gay couples has nothing to do with discrimination; it has everything to do with building a stable new generation and nation.
It is important that the defense of marriage not become an attack on gays, on singles or on nontraditional couples. We must recognize the right of every citizen to live in the manner of his or her own choosing. In fact, it makes sense to ensure that essential civil rights, protection from violence and appropriate societal benefits are afforded to all citizens, be they single or combined in nontraditional relationships.
So, what to do?
Act now to protect marriage in your state.
Thirty-seven states-38 with recent actions by Ohio-have a Defense of Marriage Act. Twelve states, including Massachusetts, do not. I urge my fellow governors and all state legislators to review and, if necessary, strengthen the laws concerning marriage. Look to carefully delineate in the acts themselves the underlying, compelling state purposes. Explore, as well, amendments to the state constitution. In Massachusetts, gay rights advocates in years past successfully thwarted attempts to call a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. This cannot happen again. It is imperative that we proceed with the legitimate process of amending our state constitution.
Beware of activist judges.
The Legislature is our lawmaking body, and it is the Legislature's job to pass laws. As governor, it is my job to carry out the laws. The Supreme Judicial Court decides cases where there is a dispute as to the meaning of the laws or the constitution. This is not simply a separation of the branches of government, it is also a balance of powers: One branch is not to do the work of the other. It is not the job of judges to make laws, the job of legislators to command the National Guard, or my job to resolve litigation between citizens. If the powers were not separated this way, an official could make the laws, enforce them, and stop court challenges to them. No one branch or person should have that kind of power. It is inconsistent with a constitutional democracy that guarantees to the people the ultimate power to control their government.
With the Dred Scott case, decided four years before he took office, President Lincoln faced a judicial decision that he believed was terribly wrong and badly misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution. Here is what Lincoln said: "If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." By its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts circumvented the Legislature and the executive, and assumed to itself the power of legislating. That's wrong.
Act at the federal level.
In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. While the law protects states from being forced to recognize gay marriage, activist state courts could reach a different conclusion, just as ours did. It would be disruptive and confusing to have a patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws between states. Amending the Constitution may be the best and most reliable way to prevent such confusion and preserve the institution of marriage. Sometimes we forget that the ultimate power in our democracy is not in the Supreme Court but rather in the voice of the people. And the people have the exclusive right to protect their nation and constitution from judicial overreaching.
People of differing views must remember that real lives and real people are deeply affected by this issue: traditional couples, gay couples and children. We should conduct our discourse with decency and respect for those with different opinions. The definition of marriage is not a matter of semantics; it will have lasting impact on society however it is ultimately resolved. This issue was seized by a one-vote majority of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. We must now act to preserve the voice of the people and the representatives they elect.
Mr. Romney is governor of Massachusetts
So much for your silence theory. Perhaps your polygamy theory is equally flawed.
“With the Dred Scott case, decided four years before he took office, President Lincoln faced a judicial decision that he believed was terribly wrong and badly misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution. Here is what Lincoln said: "If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." By its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts circumvented the Legislature and the executive, and assumed to itself the power of legislating. That's wrong.”
As I stated in my post No.20
In addition, it is also claimed there is a wanting of proof that a compelling state interest exists for the statutory definition of marriage to prevail. But no one under our system of law is required to prove a compelling state interest exists for a legislative act to be constitutional, and, our judges are not their to engage in activism and second guess the wisdom of a state legislature by requiring a compelling state interest to be shown to them to give their judicial blessing to a legislative act .
JWK
ACRS
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness."___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas
Filed at 9:15 a.m. ET
BOSTON (AP) -- A majority of Massachusetts residents oppose legalizing gay marriage, a significant change since the state's highest court ruled three months ago that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, according to a Boston Globe poll.
The poll indicated opposition to gay marriage has jumped 10 percentage points since a poll taken just days after the Supreme Judicial Court's Nov. 18 ruling legalizing gay marriages.
|
|
|
In the new poll, 35 percent supported legalizing gay marriage and 53 percent were opposed; in the earlier poll, 48 percent supported legalizing gay marriages, while 43 percent were opposed.
The survey of 400 adults, conducted Wednesday and Thursday, has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.
The poll, published in Sunday editions of the Globe, also found a significant majority of those surveyed want voters -- not the courts or the Legislature -- to define marriage in Massachusetts through a statewide ballot question to amend the constitution. Also, 60 percent of those polled supported Vermont-style civil unions for same-sex couples, a 7-point decrease from an earlier poll.
The increase in opposition follows lobbying by the Catholic Church and other gay marriage opponents, who have lobbied for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Among Catholics, the percentage of those who oppose gay marriage increased from 47 percent to 66 percent.
``There has clearly been a backlash against the court ruling,'' said Gerry Chervinsky, the president of KRC Communications Research of Newton, which conducted the poll.
The survey also indicated deep divisions over what course the Legislature should take. None of the three proposed amendments considered by lawmakers was supported by a majority of those surveyed:
-- An amendment that would restrict marriage to heterosexuals was opposed 47 percent to 45 percent in favor. That amendment stated that ``nothing in this article requires or prohibits civil unions,'' but did not establish or define them, or explicitly give the Legislature the ability to create them.
-- An amendment that would restrict marriages to heterosexuals, but also mandate the creation of a civil union system for same-sex couples, was opposed 49 percent to 36 percent in favor.
-- An amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman and establishing civil unions, but leaving it to the legislature to define what benefits civil unions provide, was opposed 55 percent to 30 percent in favor.
The poll also indicated differences of opinion among residents based on age, party affiliation, gender and religious affiliation.
Male respondents opposed legalizing gay marriage more than women did. Republicans strongly opposed it, while Democrats were statistically split. A majority of respondents over the age of 40 opposed gay marriage, while about 45 percent of those under 40 favored it. Catholics firmly opposed legalizing gay marriage, while 47 percent of Protestants opposed it and 38 percent supported it.
The poll was taken a week after a two-day constitutional convention that failed to resolve whether to put a constitutional definition of marriage on the ballot. The convention is scheduled to reconvene March 11.
The SJC ruling cleared the way for gay marriages beginning in mid-May.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Gay-Marriage-Massachusetts.html
Conservatives are losing the culture war. Today, there are half a dozen or more homosexual-themed cable TV shows on four different cable networks because homosexual studio executives and scriptwriters are more determined than ever to brainwash the public. Public schools throughout the country are indoctrinating children as young as five so that they will grow up to support homosexual causes. And the liberal media gives 100% favorable press coverage to homosexuals on a daily basis. The homosexual agenda has gone completely unchallenged for years.
Homosexuals are becoming increasingly bold because they know the tide has turned for them. Today, I saw two lesbians fondling each other in a crowded bookstore, in full view of the other patrons. I was repulsed by how they were clearly making an effort to draw attention to themselves, inspite of - or even because of - how others felt about their behavior.
Time is NOT on our side. We are quite literally holding our finger to a dyke. Republicans need to pull their heads out their butts; otherwise, they will be letting a golden opportunity pass them by. Imagine how difficult it would be to pass such an amendment in San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi's House of Representatives.
The Catholic League sent a mailer to every home in Massachusetts, featuring comments from all four Massachusetts bishops. There is a lesson here about catechesis.
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
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.