From Reuters:
The lawsuit by the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) said the state's attorney general erred when he ruled in September that Massachusetts voters could decide in a 2008 poll to redefine marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
They said the decision by Thomas Reilly, a Democrat who is likely to run for governor this year, was unconstitutional because ballot initiatives cannot reverse judicial decisions under the state's Constitution.
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said in a CBS story on the issue, that the proposed amendment doesn't specifically address the judicial decision which essentially legalized homosexual "marriage" but seeks to clarify the definition of marriage. The amendment would clarify what had been clearly understood for thousands of years, until Mass. judges took it upon themselves to redefine "marriage." (You have to clarify things for judges these days--they're either products of public education, or the intentionally don't give a rip about representative democracy).
According to these homosexuals, it's unconstitutional to change the constitution via constitutional measures. It is, however, fine to legislate by judicial fiat.
The legally-outlined process for an initiative to change the Mass. constitution is unconstitutional, but judges making their own laws to impose on the people of Mass. is constitutional. Only liberals can come up with twisted logic like that!
The lawsuit by the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) said the state's attorney general erred when he ruled in September that Massachusetts voters could decide in a 2008 poll to redefine marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
They said the decision by Thomas Reilly, a Democrat who is likely to run for governor this year, was unconstitutional because ballot initiatives cannot reverse judicial decisions under the state's Constitution.
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said in a CBS story on the issue, that the proposed amendment doesn't specifically address the judicial decision which essentially legalized homosexual "marriage" but seeks to clarify the definition of marriage. The amendment would clarify what had been clearly understood for thousands of years, until Mass. judges took it upon themselves to redefine "marriage." (You have to clarify things for judges these days--they're either products of public education, or the intentionally don't give a rip about representative democracy).
According to these homosexuals, it's unconstitutional to change the constitution via constitutional measures. It is, however, fine to legislate by judicial fiat.
The legally-outlined process for an initiative to change the Mass. constitution is unconstitutional, but judges making their own laws to impose on the people of Mass. is constitutional. Only liberals can come up with twisted logic like that!
0 comments:
Post a Comment