Replies

Yes, rights for Blacks did not have majority support for quite a while, but eventually Congress and the states passed the legislation that guaranteed the demanded rights.

Not allowing a vote because the issue is "obviously a basic human rights issue" will eventually eliminate the need for most votes- a few people will decide "what's right" and the rest of us must accept it.

Like the current issue with homosexual marriage up in Mass- four people decided it was a "right", and apparently that's that.

It's considered a basic civil right to give illegals special tuition breaks, and some feel it's a basic civil right for illegals and nonresidents to vote as well. Maybe it's a basic civil right to have taxpayer supported "free" medical care. I could go on and make up a very scary list but I think the point is made.

"Like the current issue with homosexual marriage up in Mass four people decided it was a "right", and apparently that's that."

Correct, unfortunately. Which is why, with all the underhanded tactics that went into the decision of these 4 judges prior to the decision, there is a resolution to remove those judges. IF they can ever pressure the Legislature enough, they actually vote on it.

Interesting what the other 3 judges had to say:

These three liberal judges also wrote:

“Today, the court has transformed its role as protector of individual rights into the role of creator of rights, and I respectfully dissent.” Justice Francis X. Spina
“[T]he case stands as an aberration. To reach the result it does,the court has tortured the rational basis test beyond recognition.” Justice Martha B. Sosman
“Whether the court is correct in its assumption is irrelevant.What is relevant is that such predicting is not the business of the courts.” Justice Robert J. Cordy.

This is not all they wrote. Judge Cordy was so upset that he wrote more than Margaret Marshall did, Exactly 9210 words to Marshall's 9021.

Cordy summed it up in this truism.

"The court recognizes this concern, [marriage between homosexuals could signal an abandonment of the belief that marriage for heterosexuals is the proper environment for having and rearing of children] but brushes it aside with the assumption that permitting same-sex couples to marry 'will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage,' [citation] and that 'we have no doubt that marriage will continue to be a vibrant and revered institution.' [citation]

"Whether the court is correct in its assumption is irrelevant. What is relevant is that such predicting is not the business of the courts. A rational Legislature, given the evidence, could conceivably come to a different conclusion, or could at least harbor rational concerns about possible unintended consequences of a dramatic redefinition of marriage."

The MA Legislature has defied the constitution so many times, it may as well not exist at all.