Posted on 05/14/2004 4:42:47 PM PDT by pollywog
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to intervene in the same-sex marriages law in Mass. Truly a sad day for America.
I'm curious as to how you think the mechanism on that will work. Do you mean the Islamofascists will hate us even MORE because of this?
God could use them to destroy us.
Of course they have. They probably have the decision framed on their office walls. They are largely to credit for it with their appalling Lawrence decision.
What's in the Cosntitution is the Guarantee clause. It guarantees a republican form of government to every state. The Mass. court violated the separation of powers in their state. But don't expect the SCOTUS to notice. They violate it themselves all the time.
Now comes the ones who want group marriages, sibling marriages, inter-species marriages, etc. Marriage as an institution has ceased to have any meaning, except as a contract, like buying a car.
The next generation is screwed. The one after that will not have gay marriages, since they will all be muslim. That will be the end result that will point back to this coming Monday.
I am so very proud of your comments, and endorse every word!! Thank you for saying it so clearly!
The US Constitution guarantees to every state a republican form of government. That's what this case was about. They said that the Mass. court violated the guarantee clause. (Article IV, section 4) But get another set of activist judges to admit that judges can abuse the separation of powers. It's not likely to happen.
No.
God did not kill soddomites because he made them that way, but because they were evil in his sight because of their sin.
Not sure why you addressed me; I am socially conservative, not a libertarian.
Saying this is an issue of a state constitution is a joke. The decision was based on phrases included in the U.S. Constitution and pretty much every state constitution -- "Equal Protection" and "Due Process" It cited many federal cases, especially Lawrence vs. Texas. It even mentioned Canada's legalization of gay marriage. It was an in-your-face decision that was a clear violation of the guarantee clause. The people of Mass. cannot respond for two years. They are unrepresented. Gay marriage supporters are getting it both ways, they are arguing on constitutional grounds -- wording in the US Constitution -- yet they are claiming marriage a state issue. It can't be both.
3. Remedy. The remedy that the court has fashioned both in the name of equal protection and due process exceeds the bounds of judicial restraint mandated by art. 30. The remedy that construes gender specific language as gender neutral amounts to a statutory revision that replaces the intent of the Legislature with that of the court. Article 30 permits the court to apply principles of equal protection and to modify statutory language only if legislative intent is preserved. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Chou, 433 Mass. 229, 238-239 (2001) (judicial rewriting of gender language permissible only when Legislature intended to include both men and women). See also Lowell v. Kowalski, 380 Mass. 663, 670 (1980). Here, the alteration of the gender- specific language alters precisely what the Legislature unambiguously intended to preserve, the marital rights of single men and women. Such a dramatic change in social institutions must remain at the behest of the people through the democratic process.
Where the application of equal protection principles do not permit rewriting a statute in a manner that preserves the intent of the Legislature, we do not rewrite the statute. In Dalli v. Board of Educ., 358 Mass. 753 (1971), the court refused to rewrite a statute in a manner that would include unintended individuals. "To attempt to interpret this [statute] as including those in the category of the plaintiff would be to engage in a judicial enlargement of the clear statutory language beyond the limit of our judicial function. We have traditionally and consistently declined to trespass on legislative territory in deference to the time tested wisdom of the separation of powers as expressed in art. [30] of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of Massachusetts even when it appeared that a highly desirable and just result might thus be achieved." Id. at 759. Recently, in Connors v. Boston, 430 Mass. 31 (1999), we refused to expand health insurance coverage to include domestic partners because such an expansion was within the province of the Legislature, where policy affecting family relationships is most appropriate and frequently considered. Id. at 42-43. Principles of equal protection do not permit the marriage statutes to be changed in the manner that we have seen today.
This court has previously exercised the judicial restraint mandated by art. 30 and declined to extend due process protection to rights not traditionally coveted, despite recognition of their social importance. See Tobin's Case, 424 Mass. 250, 252-253 (1997) (receiving workers' compensation benefits not fundamental right); Doe v. Superintendent of Schs. of Worcester, 421 Mass. 117, 129 (1995) (declaring education not fundamental right); Williams v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Human Servs., 414 Mass. 551, 565 (1993) (no fundamental right to receive mental health services); Matter of Tocci, 413 Mass. 542, 548 n. 4 (1992) (no fundamental right to practice law); Commonwealth v. Henry's Drywall Co., 366 Mass. 539, 542 (1974) (no fundamental right to pursue one's business). Courts have authority to recognize rights that are supported by the Constitution and history, but the power to create novel rights is reserved for the people through the democratic and legislative processes.
Likewise, the Supreme Court exercises restraint in the application of substantive due process " 'because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.' [Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992).] By extending constitutional protection to an asserted right or liberty interest, we, to a great extent, place the matter outside the arena of public debate and legislative action. We must therefore 'exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field,' [id.], lest the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transformed into the policy preferences of the Members of this Court, Moore [v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 502 (1977) ] (plurality opinion)." Washington v. Glucksberg, supra at 720.
The court has extruded a new right from principles of substantive due process, and in doing so it has distorted the meaning and purpose of due process. The purpose of substantive due process is to protect existing rights, not to create new rights. Its aim is to thwart government intrusion, not invite it. The court asserts that the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights serves to guard against government intrusion into each individual's sphere of privacy. Ante at. Similarly, the Supreme Court has called for increased due process protection when individual privacy and intimacy are threatened by unnecessary government imposition. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472 (2003) (private nature of sexual behavior implicates increased due process protection);
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) (privacy protection extended to procreation decisions within nonmarital context); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (due process invoked because of intimate nature of procreation decisions). These cases, along with the Moe case, focus on the threat to privacy when government seeks to regulate the most intimate activity behind bedroom doors. The statute in question does not seek to regulate intimate activity within an intimate relationship, but merely gives formal recognition to a particular marriage. The State has respected the private lives of the plaintiffs, and has done nothing to intrude in the relationships that each of the plaintiff couples enjoy. Cf. Lawrence v. Texas, supra at 2484 (case "does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter"). Ironically, by extending the marriage laws to same-sex couples the court has turned substantive due process on its head and used it to interject government into the plaintiffs' lives.
Yes it is. It is all a repeat of the downfall of values as in History, they called it Midevil times. We once again are entering the darkness that man creates from time to time!
That is predicted in Revelation when the churches themselves begin to join force with evil and the Harlot!
The Churches will assume the posture of its leadership against the will of the majority of the worshiping public.
That is why to turn to the Word of God as we worship will expose these evil doers.
Pillars of salt they will all be.
Ops4 God Bless America!
States rights not a good thing in this case?
I don't think judicial fiat on a state supreme court counts as "states rights". However, I am sure a libertarian can justify it. Another libertarian type tried to say it was an example of federalism.
In truth, it's neither. Marriage is a legal issue, already pre-defined. For a court to change the meaning of the words that delineate the law is to change the law itself -- Something that the courts are not empowered to do.
If this matter stands, the rule of law will be just an empty phrase and will have no practical meaning or use. Once the court succeeds in subverting this principle with impunity, the bedrock of our constitution which holds all men of good will in check will be destroyed. The court would be well-advised to consider the consequences.
I'm not sure there's anything in the Constitution that prohibits it.
That's because when the Constitution was written...that filthy little habit was kept private. We are a perverse society, look around you, not even our great grandparents would have anticipated such open depravity!!
the grand ballrooms have already been rented....
One can only hope for a meteorite at that particular spot at that particular time!!!
So you hope gays get killed?
Seems Sodom and Gommorah was a good example of what God intends to do with the Gays....we will just listen....can't watch or will become a pillar of salt.
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.