Posted on 02/16/2007 10:03:13 AM PST by DeerfieldObserver
Now show me the Massachusetts LAW or constitutional provision that legalizes gay marriage.
Here's an interesting link for those who might be following along:
I'm glad you agree with me. It's a sign your have started to grasp the concepts of logical inference, the idea that actions have consequences, and that just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean the means of achieving it are wrong.
Your teacher may let you out of 5th grade really soon!
The Governor’s New Clothes; How Mitt Romney Brought Same-Sex Marriage To America
Part II - What the SJC Did and What They Did Not Do
The Goodridge Court Declared the Massachusetts Marriage Statute Unconstitutional
To understand how same-sex couples, local town clerks and politicians, and the rest of America have been convinced that same-sex “marriage” is legal in Massachusetts and to understand how the people of the Commonwealth have been forced into accepting “marriages” that violate the law, it is important to look at exactly what the Supreme Judicial Court actually did on November 17, 2003. It is, yet, equally if not more important to understand what they did not do.
In Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003),
[e]ach of the plaintiff couples attempted to obtain a marriage license from a city or town clerk's office. As required under G. L. c. 207, they completed notices of intention to marry on forms provided by the registry, see G. L. c. 207, § 20, and presented these forms to a Massachusetts town or city clerk, together with the required health forms and marriage license fees. See G. L. c. 207, § 19. In each case, the clerk either refused to accept the notice of intention to marry or denied a marriage license to the couple on the ground that Massachusetts does not recognize same-sex marriage.[32]
A Superior Court judge ruled for the department. In a memorandum of decision and order dated May 7, 2002, he dismissed the plaintiffs' claim that the marriage statutes should be construed to permit marriage between persons of the same sex, holding that the plain wording of G. L. c. 207, as well as the wording of other marriage statutes, precluded that interpretation. Turning to the constitutional claims, he held that the marriage exclusion does not offend the liberty, freedom, equality, or due process provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution, and that the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights does not guarantee ‘the fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex.’ He concluded that prohibiting same-sex marriage rationally furthers the Legislature's legitimate interest in safeguarding the ‘primary purpose’ of marriage, ‘procreation.’ The Legislature may rationally limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, he concluded, because those couples are ‘theoretically . . . capable of procreation,’ they do not rely on ‘inherently more cumbersome’ non-coital means of reproduction, and they are more likely than same-sex couples to have children, or more children. After the complaint was dismissed and summary judgment entered for the defendants, the plaintiffs appealed. Both parties requested direct appellate review, which we granted.[33]
The Supreme Judicial Court explained that:
civil marriage is created and regulated through exercise of the police power. ‘Police power’ (now more commonly termed the State's regulatory authority) is an old-fashioned term for the Commonwealth's lawmaking authority, as bounded by the liberty and equality guarantees of the Massachusetts Constitution and its express delegation of power from the people to their government. In broad terms, it is the Legislature's power to enact rules to regulate conduct, to the extent that such laws are "necessary to secure the health, safety, good order, comfort, or general welfare of the community." The Supreme Judicial Court went on to explain that “[o]btaining a marriage license [in Massachusetts] is a necessary prerequisite to civil marriage.”[34]
The Supreme Judicial Court then decided that Chapter 207 does not permit same sex marriage as it was written:
The everyday meaning of ‘marriage’ is ‘[t]he legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife,’ Black's Law Dictionary 986 (7th ed. 1999), and the plaintiffs do not argue that the term ‘marriage’ has ever had a different meaning under Massachusetts law. . . . Far from being ambiguous, the undefined word ‘marriage,’ as used in G. L. c. 207, confirms the General Court's intent to hew to the term's common-law and quotidian meaning concerning the genders of the marriage partners. . . . The intended scope of G. L. c. 207 is also evident in its consanguinity provisions. . . . We conclude, as did the judge, that G. L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.[35]
In essence, the Court found that the Legislature when enacting c. 207 could only have understood “marriage” to be defined as existing between one man and one woman.
The Supreme Judicial Court construed the plain meaning of the words of the statute as follows::
Here, the plaintiffs seek only to be married, not to undermine the institution of civil marriage. They do not want marriage abolished. They do not attack the binary nature of marriage, the consanguinity provisions, or any of the other gate-keeping provisions of the marriage licensing law. Recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage, . . .We also reject the argument suggested by the department, and elaborated by some amici, that expanding the institution of civil marriage in Massachusetts to include same-sex couples will lead to interstate conflict.[36]
Relying on a foreign country’s precedent for how Massachusetts should interpret our law, the Court explained:
We face a problem similar to one that recently confronted the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the highest court of that Canadian province, when it considered the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage ban under Canada's Federal Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). See Halpern v. Toronto (City), 172 O.A.C. 276 (2003). Canada, like the United States, adopted the common law of England that civil marriage is "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others." Id. at par. (36), quoting Hyde v. Hyde, [1861-1873] All E.R. 175 (1866). In holding that the limitation of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the Charter, the Court of Appeal refined the common-law meaning of marriage.[37]
We concur with this remedy, which is entirely consonant with established principles of jurisprudence empowering a court to refine a common-law principle in light of evolving constitutional standards. (emphasis added) See Powers v. Wilkinson, [38] 399 Mass. 650, 661-662 (1987) (reforming common-law rule of construction of "issue"); Lewis v. Lewis,[39] 370 Mass. 619, 629 (1976) (abolishing common-law rule of certain interspousal immunity).[40]
We construe [common law] (the opinion says “civil”) marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. This reformulation redresses the plaintiffs' constitutional injury and furthers the aim of marriage to promote stable, exclusive relationships. It advances the two legitimate State interests the department has identified: providing a stable setting for child rearing and conserving State resources. It leaves intact the Legislature's broad discretion to regulate marriage.[41]
Doing only what they had been asked to do – and indeed the only thing they had authority to do – the SJC “declared” that the current definition of the word “marriage” is unconstitutional; i.e., “barring” same-sex marriage is unconstitutional:
“We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution.”[42]
ENDNOTES
[32] Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003).
[33] Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003).
[34] Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003).
[35] Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003).
[36] Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003).
[37] Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003).
[38] See Powers v. Wilkinson, 399 Mass. 650, 661-662 (1987) (reforming the common-law rule of construction of "issue"); Lewis v. Lewis, 370 Mass. 619, 629 (1976) (abolishing common-law rule of certain interspousal immunity). The SJC cited Powers v. Wilkinson, which changed the common law meaning of the word “issue,” but only for the future. "It is fundamental that a trust instrument must be construed to give effect to the intention of the donor as ascertained from the language of the whole instrument considered in the light of circumstances known to the donor at the time of its execution." Groden v. Kelley, 382 Mass. 333, 335 (1981), relying on Dana v. Gring, 374 Mass. 109, 117 (1977), and cases cited. Our review of the trust instrument confirms what is undisputed here, that the instrument itself contains no indication of the donor's intent to use the word "issue" so as to include or exclude nonmarital descendants. . . . Because nothing indicates an intent by the donor to include nonmarital issue, precedent requires us to presume that the donor intended, in accordance with the law extant at the time the instrument was executed, to exclude nonmarital descendants from the class denoted by her use of the word "issue.". . . Thus, if the rule excluding nonmarital children from judicial construction of the word "issue" was not archaic when this court reiterated it in 1947, it has become so. . . . We conclude, then, that the new rule of construction applies only to trust instruments executed after the date of this opinion. (emphasis added).” The SJC did not even impose it’s progressive viewpoint on the poor testator who put the word “issue” in his trust and expected it to have its traditional meaning, which the SJC honored by making the enforcement of the decision not retroactive but proactive in its application.
[39] In Lewis v. Lewis, 370 Mass. 619 (1976), the SJC determined: “The fundamental basis for the common law rule of interspousal immunity was the special unity of husband and wife within the marital relationship. . . . We conclude therefore that it is open to this court to reconsider the common law rule of interspousal immunity and, having done so, we are of opinion that it should no longer bar an action by one spouse against another in a case such as the present one. . . . We have examined the reasons offered in support of the common law immunity doctrine and, whatever their vitality in the social context of generations past, we find them inadequate today to support a general rule of interspousal tort immunity.
[40] Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003)
41] Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003)
[42] Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003)
I agree with you that you admitted openly that you consider constitutional provisions to be "irrelevent."
You're a grade A example of the problem we're faced with in America today.
Thomas Jefferson foresaw it all:
"The Judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric."
"...the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. When all government... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
"The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislative and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."
Actually, I was saying that it's irrelevant if it were me or a disabled woman who died.
But thanks for playing. Try again next time.
Really? You think that some tinpot local judge in Florida has the right to co-opt the power of all three branches of government and off you without a conviction for a capital crime?
No, I don't. But I don't think the Governor should be able to co-opt the Court either.
You seem to have a very difficult time grasping this concept:
Judges judge.
Governors govern.
Legislatures legislate.
Governors do not judge or legislate.
Legislatures do not govern or judge
Judges do not govern or legislate.
If they do overstep their bounds as you see it, good, work for change. Elect better people. Don't proclaim your own opinion to be perfect and then proclaim that since they disagree, they don't have any authority. You are doing just what you are accusing them of doing.
Obviously, to you, there is no line that the courts can not step over before the executive exercises any kind of check on them...not even killing citizens by cruel and unusual means.
It's not the executive's job to check them. That's the job of the legislature. If they are doing something wrong, they can be impeached. In Florida, they can be recalled, I believe.
Separation of powers certainly doesn't seem to mean much to you if it doesn't get you what you want. It is your 'interpretation' that the court "killed a citizen by cruel and unusual punishment", it's not a 'fact'. Fight for your interpretation, don't declare it to be absolutely true. You aren't a dictator, regardless of how much you might want to be. You need to convince other people you are right and change the system through legitimate means.
Like most fanatics, you can't wait that long.
Of course it is. He swore to protect and uphold the Constitution. That's a solemn oath.
That's the job of the legislature.
In MA, the legislature HAD checked the out of control "Goodridge" court. They ignored them. If Romney had simply ignored them too, the legislative and the executive branches would have checked these four out-of-control leftist judges. But no, Romney saw fit to side with the lawless decision of the court and joined them in checking the legislature. "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty cool!" But, there is still no law.
Again, Thomas Jefferson:
"...the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. When all government... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
His comments apply equally to the state courts, too.
The whole legal profession is full of judicial supremacists these days, of course. It's their power we're talking about.
This is a childish interpretation. There is such a thing as areas of authority, jurisdiction, etc.
If I'm the Governor of, say, North Dakota, and I think the Constitution is being violated in Nebraska, what should I do?
Answer: Nothing more then a normal citizen. It's not in my area of authority.
In the same way, Governors shouldn't 'protect' the Constitution by violating the separation of powers set up by that same Constitution.
I've proven your idiocy about the Mass. Legislature wrong so many times, as have others, I'm not even going to bother again.
Romney will have to win the GOP nomination first, and he isn't exactly winning any popularity contests right now. But I certainly like Romney . . his campaign hasn't caught on at all. He is down to 6 per cent in the last polls.
Yes, you're so adult. Just allow the courts to destroy American lives and pull down our most sacred institutions with both hands. So mature. Did you come of age in law school?
There is such a thing as areas of authority, jurisdiction, etc.
The Executive's primary duty is to protect the lives, the liberty and the property of the citizens he represents, and to protect and preserve the Constitution. Sorry to hear you can't understand those simple facts.
If I'm the Governor of, say, North Dakota, and I think the Constitution is being violated in Nebraska, what should I do? Answer: Nothing more then a normal citizen. It's not in my area of authority.
A worthless red herring.
In the same way, Governors shouldn't 'protect' the Constitution by violating the separation of powers set up by that same Constitution.
Right. Sure. But you'll defend the court's "right" to legislate and execute from now 'til kingdom come.
I've proven your idiocy about the Mass. Legislature wrong so many times, as have others,
Hardly. I keep asking you to provide the law that allows for gay marriage in MA, but you can't. You're quite literally "lawless," just as the court that decided Goodridge is lawless.
http://robertpaine.blogspot.com/
I'm not even going to bother again.
Well, run away, then.
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/mitt_romney_chose_gay_marriage.php
Here's debunking your idiocy. AGAIN.
And you still can't point to me the law that allows the Governor to assert his own opinion on the Constitution over the opinion of the judges.
Ah, the fake "evangelicals for Mitt."
Not impressed. They're a bunch of unprincipled sellouts.
Spinning for dollars and power...
The court didn't even order Mitt to do a thing. They dictated to the legislature...a dictate that the legislative branch rightfully ignored.
Again, show me the constitutional provision or the MA law, passed by the legislature, that "legalized" gay marriage. I won't hold my breath waiting, since it doesn't exist.
Unprincipled sellouts, I see, kind of like you're Alan Keys shilling, I take it?
Anyhow, it wouldn't matter if they were the gay nazis. They use facts and logic to back up their position, something you never do.
Your second post has already been answered, but you are too stupid to see it.
*yawn*
"Giuliani/Jeb Bush"
I'd vote against that ticket. I'm done with the disappointing RINO Bush family and I will never support a RINO ex-mayor who has acted terribly in his own personal life and who has supported publicly funded abortions, gun control, and expanded gay rights.
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.