Harry Forbes noted some additional information about Mass. Attorney-General Martha Coakley’s recent public comments that, even if passed, a constitutional amendment to protect marriage would unconstitutional. He found an Associated Press story that filled in some blanks that the Boston Globe story left unfilled. Here’s what he quoted from the story with his emphasis added in bold:
Coakley said that even though the Supreme Judicial Court ruled last July that the proposed amendment could be placed on the ballot if approved by the Legislature, at least two justices also questioned whether the amendment is constitutional.
She quoted a joint court opinion by Justices John Greaney and Roderick Ireland saying the 2003 SJC decision that legalized same-sex marriage “may be irreversible because of its holding that no rational basis exist, or can be advanced, to support the definition of marriage” as only between a man and a woman. The opinion also noted that the amendment would discriminate against same-sex couples by removing rights they already had been granted.
In other words, no matter what the people say or how the constitution is amended there can be no basis for denying that marriage can exist between two men or two women because the Supreme Judicial Court justices say so. This is not law by consent of the governed, but law as handed down from above by an oligarchy.
Sola constitutionalia and judicial infallibility
Technorati Tags: Massachusetts | same-sex marriage | constitution | Supreme Judicial Court | judges |
Why do we have marriage laws to begin with if the acknowledgement of the responsible conjugal relationship between a man and woman serves no purpose to the community? Why not abolish them completely, rather then redefine the word itself?
If the government and the public schools promote and endorse that responsible procreational activities are completely irrelevant, then many of young adults will see no purpose even create a secure environment to raise children. Maybe in a generation or two, maybe sooner the government will be begging women to have children. We’ve already seen lawmakers bend over backwards to get fertile aged women (22-35) and men in the same age bracket to stay in Massachusetts. What’s the point of getting married and try to raise well adjusted functional children in Massachusetts, if you’ll just be bullied and labeled a bigot or homophobe by differing factions of the neuter marriage lobby?
As law biding citizens we’ve done everything we can. What left is there to do?