A mockery of the rules (MA)

The Boston Globe ^ | July 9, 2006 | Jeff Jacoby

[DBeers]

WHEN THE Massachusetts Legislature meets in joint session as a constitutional convention this week, the most notable item on its agenda will be a proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage. A record-breaking 170,000 registered voters have signed petitions to put such an amendment on the state ballot. But the Massachusetts Constitution mandates a detour: The measure must first win the support of at least 50 lawmakers in two consecutive legislative terms. Only then can it be submitted to the people. If the amendment gets past every hurdle, it will reach the ballot in November 2008.

It is a deliberately long and cumbersome process, meant to keep the Constitution from being altered recklessly, and to provide time for an amendment's pros and cons to be fully aired. To draft an amendment that passes legal muster, to collect tens of thousands of signatures, to haul reams of petitions to and from hundreds of town halls in every corner of the state, to raise funds, to debate and defend the proposal -- it takes an incredible amount of work and dedication to get an amendment to the ballot. Citizens who accomplish it demonstrate an admirable faith in the democratic system. That doesn't entitle them to win, of course. But they are entitled to be treated fairly. If the petitioners have to play by the rules, the Legislature does, too.

And what the rules say about the marriage amendment is that the Legislature must put it to a vote. The Massachusetts Constitution could not be clearer on the point. Article 48, which establishes the right of initiative and referendum, specifies that when amendments proposed by initiative petition come before the Legislature, a roll call is mandatory.

[madprof98]

Those intoxicated with their own moral superiority often find it easy to believe that it is ``perfectly acceptable" to make a mockery of the rules that ensure fairness for those they look down on.

In this case, those the elites despise are the few remaining decent people in Massachusetts.

[DBeers]

Homosexual Agenda Ping!

If you oppose the homosexualization of society
-add yourself to the ping list!

To be included in or removed from the
HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PING LIST,
please FReepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2k.

Free Republic homosexual agenda keyword search [ Add keyword = homosexualagenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

Good read on the homosexual agenda leftist elite members of the Massachusetts legislature who conspire to ignore the will of the people and flout the State Constitution to promote and protect the judicially imposed homosexual sex based "marriage" thing they have going on...

[GeorgiaDawg32]

``The basic question here is whether people come before their government as equals." His position, in other words, is that scores of thousands of petitioners must be treated as second-class citizens in order to ensure that people aren't treated as second-class citizens."

Hey you jacka*s, the people ARE the government..THEY elected YOU to REPRESENT them..talk about the utmost arrogant, misguided, ridiculous statement..IMHO

[Disturbin]

"In a newspaper ad appearing this week, 165 Massachusetts business executives and civic leaders endorse same-sex marriage"

I didn't realize there are that many clothing stores and bath houses in Provincetown.

"But the ad says nothing about the right of 170,000 Massachusets citizens to have their petition put to a vote on Beacon Hill."

They will do anything to prevent this measure from reaching the ballot.

"Same-sex marriage supporters dominate the Massachusetts power structure; if they are hell-bent on denying voters a chance to be heard on the issue, they can probably get away with it."

Welcome to Massachusetts!

[funkywbr]

A gov of the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE???

Seems those elected by the PEOPLE don't respect the wishes of the people who elected DEM!

Good!!!

Cause it's good for DIM DEMS to see the people they elected SPIT in their faces.

You git what you pay for!

[kenboy]

Massachusetts, according to the census bureau, is home to 4.8 million adults of voting age.

If our recent budget stupidity in NJ taught us anything, it's that politicians will do whatever they need to remain in office -- so I suspect the legislators have reason to believe the 4.6 million adults who didn't sign the petition are the people whose wishes they should be respecting.

Guess they'll see in a few months if they made the right call or not.

[Dilbert San Diego]

I don't know if he can, but can Governor Romney call them into special session to vote on the amendment? If he has that executive authority, he should use it and not have them adjourn before voting on it.

Are the homo activists in favor of democracy or not??? In the wake of the New York court opinion, now they are all in favor of voting on homo marriage, i.e. through the democratic process. What would their reaction be if they don't get a vote in the New York legislature? would they complain? That's what I want to know, are they in favor of democratic procedures or not? They can't have it both ways, court orders in their favor but never allow a democratic vote on the subject.

Or they can't have it both ways and be intellectually honest about their intentions.

[gidget7]

Well after all, they did it before, and it worked. These liberals and those in power behind the legislature, will do whatever it takes to prevent a vote by the people, including, as history in MA tells us, flaunting the constitution.

[gidget7]

In MA, the fact is, it only takes HALF that many to get an amendment put on the ballot.

Not voting on it is what they pulled several years ago. The powers that be run the legislature in MA, not those elected. When seats are bought, all you have is a mouthpiece voting for the powers that be. That is to say, many of those IN office, are not there because so many voted for them.

The Republican party needs to put up a lot more candidates, good conservative ones, and maybe MA residents will actually come out and vote for a change. When a town of 20,000 residents only shows 600 or so that actually came out to vote, something is very wrong.

The Republican party has given up on MA. Perhaps because the mobs run so much, but none the less there are a lot of good people who live there. Most Dems in MA end up running uncontested.

[Disturbin]

Look what happened when Mitt put up all those Republican challengers, even financing some of their campaigns. Result: nothing! Well, except for Scott Brown.

[kenboy]

I think those who think same-sex couples should be allowed to marry believe that it is a right, and felt that state supreme courts would start to grant that right, the same way SCOTUS told Virginia is was time to drop the anti-miscegenation law in 1967. When the courts rule in their favor, they're happy dealing with the courts. When the legislatures vote in their favor, they'll be just as happy dealing with the legislatures. If they think they have the votes, they'll be very happy to let it come up for a vote, because it will give them that much more of a solid foundation down the road.

I think the legislatures are the proper way for those who want this right to persue it; I think many who want it would agree as well -- but I suspect some of those who oppose it are going to start wishing for some of their formerly hated "activist judges" to step in and block those laws from taking place. It'll be a done deal in New York within a couple of years, I think -- they might not get a vote in 2007, but they will soon enough. I expect ic they don't get a vote right away, they'll just wait another year.

[thegreatbeast]

Don't anyone think for a moment that the peoples' will on this matter will be thwarted once agaun, probably for the last time. The legislature and the mos will let "time run out".

[Aquinasfan]

"But the ad says nothing about the right of 170,000 Massachusets citizens to have their petition put to a vote on Beacon Hill."

Some pro-sodomy group has been airing an ad here in MA recently "celebrating one year of marriage for everyone," or some similar sounding nonsense. The ad put a chill down my spine. The copy is all feel-good drug-commercial stuff, but the images are all black and white stills of two old women, two young men, two young men and a boy (where did the boy come from?), etc."

The first time I saw the ad I had a "WTF?" moment, followed by an "oh shi-..." moment. All I could think about were the countless skulls full of mush being subtly persuaded by this very slick ad.

[Aquinasfan]

Are the homo activists in favor of democracy or not???

They're in favor of whatever will promote their agenda. They have no principles, which is not surprising for a group that defines itself by sodomy.

[Laura Lee]

I was in Massachusetts this past weekend and visited a friend who has been working with pro-family groups the past three years, especially Focus on the Family (James Dobson's group). She explained to me that tomorrow, Wednesday, July 12th, the Mass. legislature is scheduled to vote on whether or not to put on the ballot in November 2008 a referendum on gay marriage.

Only 1/4 of the Mass. legislature has to vote for this referendum, which means only 50 legislators. BUT they have to repeat this legislative vote once more next year (2007). IF 1/4 of the legislators in Mass. vote YES -- to put the gay marriage issue to a vote of the people in 2008 -- and they vote YES two years in a row, then it will indeed go to the people of Massachusetts.

Of course, the people of Mass., by a large majority, want to protect the traditional definition of marriage as one man, one woman. So the gays of Mass. know they will lose if it is ever allowed to come before the people.

I ask all here on FreeRepublic to please pray (if you are so inclined) for the legislators of Massachusetts to vote YES for the people's referendum on Wednesday, July 12th.

Also, in case anybody here actually lives in Massachusetts, would you please, please call your state legislator and voice your approval of traditional marriage?

If there were no other reason, the most fundamental reason is the most important: Children cannot come into this world without a biological mother and father. They cannot function properly either, in the most healthy and productive way, without a loving mother and father. Of course, no law can force all heterosexual familes to be good for children, but the law should never work AGAINST public acknowledgement of the needs (and RIGHTS) of kids.

PLEASE, PLEASE do not give up on Massachusetts. There are many good, decent, God-loving people there who need to be supported. Also, don't descend to gay-bashing. Just uphold the positive, assert the rights and needs of the most vulnerable people in society (children), and stand firm. God is the author of the laws of Creation, and no human society can long thwart those laws and continue.

Thank you.

[fwdude]

...the images are all black and white stills of two old women, two young men, two young men and a boy (where did the boy come from?), etc."

Children are a much coveted accessory for many homosexual couples, and when they can win the "right" to obtain them, flaunt this fact for the world to see how "normal" they are.

"Look at us, this child is the product of the "expression of our love." They actually imply this as if it's fact if you listen to them. (barf!)