ConCon consider Mass. marriage amendment today

ConCon consider Mass. marriage amendment today

Today the Mass. Legislature meets in its Constitutional Convention to consider amendments and other constitutional matters, among them the proposed Protection of Marriage amendment. The way it works is that the people gather signatures on a petition and submit the question before the Convention. The Legislature must approve the question in two consecutive ConCons (this year and next), and only then can it appear on the ballot for possible approval by the voters.

Even getting to this point has been a long road. First, the pro-gay forces sought to have the petition thrown out on spurious grounds of signature fraud. Then they asked the Supreme Judicial Court to throw out amendment because they said it violates the state constitution. Finally, they have strong-armed the Legislature’s leadership into blatantly unconstitutional behavior, asking them to ignore the amendment presented before the ConCon even though they are required to deal with it. Each step has been an effort to subvert the democratic process, and impose the will of a minority upon the will of the majority.

Yesterday, Virginia Buckingham, a Republican pundit and not necessarily the most conservative, wrote in her regular Boston Herald column that the elites are trying to prevent the people’s voices from being heard in the process.

Do the math. Some 123,356 citizens signed a petition so we – all of us – would have the chance to vote on the meaning of marriage in Massachusetts. Some 156 business and civic leaders tell us it’s time to “move on” to more important things.

If only the barbers, the schoolteachers, the shop owners, the soccer moms, the NASCAR dads, the church-goers and, yes, surely the lapsed Catholics who signed that petition had the guess-timated $35,000 or so to run a full page ad in The Boston Globe, lawmakers could have gotten a Monday morning reminder of their obligation to democracy, not the dictates of Boston’s elite.

… Focus first on the arrogance that underpins the “business and civic leaders for equality” Globe ad. What, let the great unwashed hear the arguments and decide for themselves whether the proposed amendment takes away rights and writes discrimination into the nation’s first and oldest Constitution?! We can’t have that! The state mustn’t give in to the “tyranny of the majority,” a Globe columnist wrote last weekend in support of this elitist viewpoint. Pardon me, but what’s more tyrannical than taking away someone’s vote?

And telling lawmakers the economy, education and public safety are more vital than the definition of marriage is like asking Mrs. Lincoln, “How was the play?” What is more vital than the fundamental institution around which our society is structured?

The requirements of the Constitution

Technorati Tags:, , , ,

bk_keywords:traditional marriage.

<!—technorati tags start—>

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

<!—technorati tags end—>

Written by
Domenico Bettinelli
1 comment
  • Thanks for that post, as I didn’t know about Article 48 before this.  The Constitution seems clear to me.  If they won’t vote, hopefully the Mass Family Institute, Vote on Marriage.org, and Massachusetts Catholic Conference, along with the governor and others, have the insight and backbone to use what the Constitution demands against them.

Archives

Categories

Categories