I particularly liked the quote: 'If the court will not be swayed from the path of tyranny, the Legislature must act to give the people their voice.'.
The court system is out of control, and the political process is turning into a contest over who gets to appoint the judges. Why? We all know that, at least liberal judges, have decided to ignore the law and impose their own opinions. They pretend to find constitutional law in 'emanations from penumbras'. Some conservative judges are probably trying to do the same thing. The legislative and executive branches must come up with reforms which will reign in these abuses. We are slowly moving from a representative form of government to rule by a small, unelected, privileged group.
I think the legislature and executive in Mass. should ignore this ruling until appropriate restraints are put in place.
The Following Editorial is from The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune. Sunday, February 8, 2004
OUR VIEW
Only a Legislature with enough backbone to insist that a free, democratic people are ruled by laws, not edicts from a four-person tribunal, can stop this from happening.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A slim majority on a sharply divided court is about to force a fundamental change in the understanding of human relationships on the people of Massachusetts.
Only a Legislature with enough backbone to insist that a free, democratic people are ruled by laws, not edicts from a four-person tribunal, can stop this from happening.
We have reached a crisis point in Massachusetts on the question of same-sex marriage. The Supreme Judicial Court by a 4-3 majority ruled in November that the state constitution does not permit laws barring same-sex couples from marrying. The court issued a 180-day stay on its ruling to give the Legislature time to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."
The Senate asked the court if a Vermont-style "civil unions" bill, granting same-sex couples all the legal benefits of traditional marriage, would suffice. On Wednesday, the court, again split 4-3, said no. Only full marriage satisfies its decision.
Justice Martha B. Sosman, one of the dissenters, rightly called the majority "activist" and "dogmatic."
These four justices in the majority -- Margaret H. Marshall, John M. Greaney, Roderick L. Ireland and Judith A. Cowin -- appointed to their posts, not elected, have taken upon themselves the decision to redefine marriage for the 6 million citizens of the commonwealth. We are to have no say.
This is not democracy but tyranny. A free people must not stand idly by in the face of it.
Marriage throughout human history has been the union of one man and one woman. It is the structure through which families are formed and maintained over generations. Each of us can trace his or her lineage back through father and grandfather, mother and grandmother. We live on past our natural deaths through children, grandchildren and their descendants.
The history of human families is a history of marriages.
The sacred bond of marriage in a religious context is not the issue here. No law can force a religion to change its understanding of marriage.
The issue is whether the state has an interest in keeping civil marriage unique as a bond between a man and a woman. It surely does.
Marriage fosters the formation of stable families, the backbone of civil society. Numerous studies have shown the ill effects on society that come from a breakdown of families.
Truly, heterosexual marriage is not perfect. Many end in divorce. Childish fools like singer Britney Spears make a mockery of marriage with drunken weddings just for the "fun" of it. But heterosexual marriage is the model civil society must promote.
Marriage is not a civil rights issue, as gay marriage advocates insist. People are denied the right to marry due to the age of the parties, their relationship or the desire to marry more than one individual.
Same-sex couples should not be denied the legal benefits that accrue to heterosexual couples. They should have the right to inherit, to speak and act in the interest of an ill partner, to enter into contracts jointly and enjoy any other financial advantages. Call it a "civil union" if you will. But it is not a "marriage."
More importantly, let us remember that homosexual men and women are our fellow citizens, entitled to be treated with dignity and respect, not hatred or derision.
There is no law, no government without the consent of the governed. That principle, not same-sex marriage, is the foundation of the Massachusetts Constitution. The Legislature must stand up for the right of citizens to rule themselves.
If the court will not be swayed from the path of tyranny, the Legislature must act to give the people their voice.
The Legislature should move forward with a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man with one woman and let the people have their say at the ballot box. It should petition the court to stay its order until that process is complete.
When the people have exercised their democratic rights, let us all agree to abide by the result.
If we are to rewrite a definition of marriage that has existed for thousands of years, it must be by the will of the people, not four judges, that we do it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic