Article 8 Draws Bead on 'Gay Marriage'

The Article 8 Alliance and its allies in the state legislature have a plan to abolish homosexual "marriage," this year if possible — not only abolish it in Massachusetts, but declare null and void the several thousand "gay marriages" that have been performed there since the state Supreme Judicial Court "legalized" it by judicial fiat almost a year ago.

"We're way ahead of where we were on this last year," said Brian Camenker, Article 8's executive director. "More and more legislators are agreeing with us and will vote for us when these bills get to the floor."

Four Bills to Kill 'Gay Marriage'
First on the list is the bill of address — a unique feature of the Massachusetts Constitution that allows the legislature, by a simple majority vote, to remove a judge from office.

The bill's target is Margaret Marshall, Chief Justice. Marshall cast the deciding vote in a 4-3 decision establishing homosexual "marriage." This occurred after Marshall appeared at homosexual fundraising events to voice her support for their campaign and to invite them to bring a case to her court, where she promised to rule in their favor. Marshall blatantly violated state rules of judicial conduct, Camenker said, in addition to "twisting the law to impose her own social and political agenda." The bill of address seeks to remove Marshall, plus the three associate justices who voted with her.

The second bill would officially, in statute, define marriage as "one man and one woman." "Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent," says the draft version of the bill.

The third bill would nullify the "gay marriages" performed in Massachusetts since last spring. All would be declared "without statutory basis; and no marriage performed in Massachusetts will be considered legally binding which is not established by Massachusetts statute, notwithstanding licensing through" any public officials, reads the bill.

The final bill (this one with 16 co-sponsors) would strengthen the Parental Notification Law by requiring parents to enroll their children in school-sanctioned programs and activities involving "human sexuality issues," rather than putting the onus on parents to withdraw their children from such programs.

"This will stop the homosexual agenda in the public schools," Camenker said, "by giving parents the power, and not the gay activists. Parents would no longer have to struggle to opt-out their kids — if they can — but choose to opt in. Last year the homosexual lobby fought this bitterly. This year we'll win."

"No public school teacher or administrator shall be required to participate in any such curriculum, programs, or activities that violate his or her religious beliefs," the bill adds.

High School 'Gay Day'
Camenker has a son at Newton North High School in Newtonville. Last month he and another school parent, Kim Cariani, brought a video camera to a school event called "BGLAD: Transgender, Bisexual, Gay and Lesbian Awareness Day."

The school principal, backed up by four police officers, ordered the parents to leave or be arrested for trespassing.

"The principal demanded the videotape, but we didn't give it to him," Camenker said. "So we've got 10 or 15 minutes of the most embarrassing stuff on tape."

*School officials proclaiming that 10 percent of the student population is non-heterosexual — a falsehood

*Attempts to equate sexual behavior with race as a form of personal identity

"Even without our videotape, the whole thing was published in the school newspaper in all its glorious detail," Camenker said.

"I don't think more than 5 percent of the parents look at the paper," Camenker said. "Parents still don't know what's going on in the public schools. And those who do know, don't know what to do about it. The gay activists really intimidate anyone who challenges them."

But Camenker still voices optimism when it comes to rolling back the homosexual revolution. Article 8's lobbying campaign has made him hopeful, he said.

"We've been talking to the legislators," he said, "and we've made progress since the elections. Many, many more legislators than last year said they've had enough. They'll vote with us."

Massachusetts' current legislative session has just begun, and the pro-family forces are almost ready.

Lee Duigon is a Christian free-lance writer and contributing editor for the Chalcedon Report. He has been a newspaper editor and reporter and a published novelist.

Article 8 Alliance

Language of bill of address, sponsored by Rep. Emile J. Goguen (D-Fitchburg), NOW before the Massachusetts Legislature:

Resolved, That both houses of the legislature hereby request the Governor by way of address, under the provisions of Article I of Chapter III of Part the Second of the Constitution, to remove Margaret H. Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, from her office, to remove John M. Greaney, Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, from his office, to remove Roderick L. Ireland, Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, from his office, and to remove Judith A. Cowin, Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, from her office.

This past session the leadership stalled it in the House Rules Committee. It's been gaining support and won't be stopped

No one can possibly read the Massachusetts Constitution and find a "fundamental right" to same-sex marriage. It comes from the tortured logic of an activist court. We cannot credibly claim to live in a democracy when our most basic laws can be dismantled by four unelected political appointees. A failure of the citizens to respond appropriately would concede that we've lost control of our own government. We live here, raise our families here, and pay taxes here. We pay the salaries of our legislators so they can protect us. We demand that they do their job.

What is a Bill of Address?

How is it different from an impeachment?

The Bill of Address

The Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams in 1780, anticipated that courts could get out of control, that judicial tyranny could happen. In fact, both Adams and Jefferson identified the judiciary as the biggest threat to a democracy.

Thus, the "checks and balances" written into our constitution already include the means for dealing with situation we are in: What to do when Supreme Judicial Court justices ignore the law or twist it to impose their own views on the citizens?

The constitutional solution is not to amend the constitution whenever the judiciary becomes despotic. (That would surely lead to anarchy.) The intended remedy is to remove judges from office who violate their oath and oppress the people.

John Adams purposely put into the Massachusetts Constitution the procedure known as a bill of address. The Legislature can remove renegade judges from office by a simple majority in both legislative chambers, with the subsequent agreement of the governor and governor's council. (Many other states have adopted similar procedures in their constitutions.) The bill of address procedure has in fact been used several times throughout the history of the Commonwealth.

The ideas behind it are straightforward. Article 8 of the Declaration of Rights sets the theme used throughout the Constitution. It uses the term "oppressors" and states the right of the people to remove their public officials:

"In order to prevent those, who are vested with authority, from becoming oppressors, the people have a right, at such periods and in such manner as they shall establish by their frame of government, to cause their public officers to return to private life; and to fill up vacant places by certain and regular elections and appointments."

Article 29 of the Declaration of Rights defines "bad behavior" of judges which could cause them to be removed from office:

"It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property, and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice... It is, therefore, not only the best policy, but for the security of the rights of the people, and of every citizen, that the judges of the supreme judicial court should hold their offices as long as they behave themselves well."

Article 30 of the Declaration of Rights further states that the judiciary may not invent their own laws -- only the Legislature can make laws:

"In the government of this commonwealth . . . the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men."

Article 1 of Chapter 3 of Section the Second defines the bill of address removal process for all judicial officers:

"All judicial officers, duly appointed, commissioned and sworn, shall hold their offices during good behavior, . . . the governor, with the consent of the council, may remove them upon the address of both houses of the legislature."

Theoretically, it could all happen in one day (not the multi-year process it takes for a Constitutional amendment)!

This bill of address goes back to English law -- the 1700 Act of Settlement, under the English monarchs William and Mary. Its purpose was the same: to ensure the accountability of public officers by the Parliament -- part of a true system of checks and balances -- rather than either simply giving judges unrestrained power or subjecting them to removal at the pleasure of the Crown.

Different from Impeachment

There is a big difference between removal by bill of address and impeachment. An impeachment process, as described in Article VIII or Section II of the Massachusetts Constitution, includes a trial by the House before the Senate for "misconduct and mal-administration in their offices".

The bill of address is different; it is a check and balance for misuse of power. Specifically, the bill of address is imposed for "bad behavior" which can include a range of issues, but is officially defined as not carrying out "an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice".

A bill of address process has no trial required. And there don't have to be any stated reasons. Thus, the process historically has happened very quickly.

What is really needed

A bill of address does require something that is in short supply these days: political courage from our legislators. But if the people of Massachusetts are to regain control of their government, and keep these four rogue justices from wreaking further social destruction, this is what is necessary. And it is necessary now.

Or else, what's next? The SJC is now in the process of re-examining the incest laws, according to newspaper reports, to see if they are also unconstitutional. This could be just the beginning.

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.