The pro-gay marriage forces in Massachusetts are prepping their bag of underhanded legislative tricks to undermine the efforts of mainstream supporters of marriage to protect the institution and doing so under the guise of “anti-discrimination.” At the Blue Mass. Group, a leading liberal Massachusetts blog, one of their supporters has listed steps that the Legislature could take to thwart the will of the people. Keep in mind that “anti-marriage minority” means folks who are trying to protect marriage from being perverted to include same-sex (and other) relationships that cannot be marriage. “Marriage supporters”, by their reckoning, are those who seek to make it meaningless by expanding the definition. Note, as well, the common trope that any opposition to such efforts are inherently hateful and discriminatory and the oft-refuted claim that signatures on the marriage protection amendment were gained fraudulently. Here are their proposals:
1. A majority of either chamber can pass resolutions deploring violence and hate rhetoric against gays (and marriage supporters).
2. Either chamber can hold hearings on signature fraud, keeping the spotlight on this seamy aspect of the anti-marriage campaign.
3. A majority of the joint session can refer the amendment to a study commission, to be recalled only if demands for a full debate are met, and at a time of the majority’s choosing—if at all.
4. As part of the above, the majority can determine when the amendment will be put before the voters: 2008 if voted on in time for the 2008 ballot, 2010 if after that.
5. A majority of the joint session could approve its own proposal to amend the constitution to outlaw discriminatory amendments.
6. In fact, this majority could cause such an amendment to be on the ballot in 2010 and, by delaying the anti-marriage amendment until then, cause both proposals to be before the voters at the same time. The majority could word the ban on discriminatory amendments to apply to the anti-marriage amendment if both passed.
7. A majority of the legislature could amend the general laws to recognize marriage for all, putting an end once and for all to the “activist judges” meme.
8. In fact, the majority could rewrite marriage laws so as to make marriage rights for everyone unseverable—so that the effect of the anti-marriage amendment would be to completely invalidate the law that defines marriage itself. A vote for the anti-marriage amendment would then be a vote to outlaw marriage for everybody.
Emotion and demagoguery
Technorati Tags:amendments, constitution, marriage, Massachusetts, politics, same-sex marriage
Regarding #7, this is what the SJC told them to do before. They didn’t have the testicular fortitude to to take that up before…I don’t know what’s different now…
I think people are fighting with their feet. When society doesn’t support marriage this is what happens…. From the Lowel Sun