y***@aol.com
2006-05-07 19:54:28 UTC
There should be no debate. This initiative belongs on the ballot and decided
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/05/05/ballot_to_ban_gay_marriage_debated/
In a spirited debate that touched on topics ranging from slavery to the
Progressive Era in American politics, supporters of same-sex marriage
yesterday urged the state's highest court to disqualify a controversial
ballot question to ban gay matrimony starting in 2008.
A lawyer for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders argued before the Supreme
Judicial Court that Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, in approving the
ballot question, flouted a provision in the state constitution that blocks
citizen-generated questions seeking the ''reversal of a judicial decision."
The SJC legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts in November 2003.
The provision clearly meant that ''the people shouldn't be able to directly
attack an SJC decision," said Gary D. Buseck, legal director at GLAD. ''They
shouldn't be able to have a referendum on that decision." The provision was
passed at the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1917-1918, which
authorized ballot questions.
But Peter Sacks, the lawyer for Reilly's office who wrote the September
decision certifying the ballot question, countered that the provision dealt
with attempts during the Progressive Era a century ago to overturn unpopular
court rulings by going directly to voters. That is different, he said, from
the proposed gay marriage ban, which would change the constitution itself by
defining marriage as strictly the union of a man and a woman. The drafters
at the Constitutional Convention were ''very clear that the people should be
the masters of their own constitution," Sacks said.
The arguments before the court dealt with complicated and arcane
constitutional questions. But the court's ruling, which Buseck said may come
in four to six weeks, could have profound implications for Massachusetts
politicians as well as for citizens on both sides of the gay marriage
debate.
A spokeswoman for Reilly, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for
governor, e-mailed news outlets after the arguments to say his decision to
certify the ballot question was ''based solely on the constitution."
Although Reilly personally opposes the ban, ''we are confident that letting
this question proceed was the proper legal decision," Meredith Baumann,
Reilly's press secretary, said in the statement. Nonetheless, one of his
Democratic rivals, Deval L. Patrick, criticized Reilly for defending the
legality of the ballot question and said the SJC ''got it right" when it
legalized gay marriage.
Since Reilly's office certified the ballot question, about 123,000
registered voters signed petitions to support it, breaking the record for
the most signatures certified in such a ballot campaign, according to the
Massachusetts Family Institute, which spearheaded the campaign. The question
must get the backing of at least 50 lawmakers in two successive legislative
sessions before it can appear on the November 2008 ballot. If the measure
passed, it would not undo same-sex marriages that have occurred since May,
17, 2004, as a result of the high court's landmark decision. But it would
halt further same-sex marriages.
by the citizens of Massachusetts. What are liberals so afraid of?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/05/05/ballot_to_ban_gay_marriage_debated/
In a spirited debate that touched on topics ranging from slavery to the
Progressive Era in American politics, supporters of same-sex marriage
yesterday urged the state's highest court to disqualify a controversial
ballot question to ban gay matrimony starting in 2008.
A lawyer for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders argued before the Supreme
Judicial Court that Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, in approving the
ballot question, flouted a provision in the state constitution that blocks
citizen-generated questions seeking the ''reversal of a judicial decision."
The SJC legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts in November 2003.
The provision clearly meant that ''the people shouldn't be able to directly
attack an SJC decision," said Gary D. Buseck, legal director at GLAD. ''They
shouldn't be able to have a referendum on that decision." The provision was
passed at the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1917-1918, which
authorized ballot questions.
But Peter Sacks, the lawyer for Reilly's office who wrote the September
decision certifying the ballot question, countered that the provision dealt
with attempts during the Progressive Era a century ago to overturn unpopular
court rulings by going directly to voters. That is different, he said, from
the proposed gay marriage ban, which would change the constitution itself by
defining marriage as strictly the union of a man and a woman. The drafters
at the Constitutional Convention were ''very clear that the people should be
the masters of their own constitution," Sacks said.
The arguments before the court dealt with complicated and arcane
constitutional questions. But the court's ruling, which Buseck said may come
in four to six weeks, could have profound implications for Massachusetts
politicians as well as for citizens on both sides of the gay marriage
debate.
A spokeswoman for Reilly, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for
governor, e-mailed news outlets after the arguments to say his decision to
certify the ballot question was ''based solely on the constitution."
Although Reilly personally opposes the ban, ''we are confident that letting
this question proceed was the proper legal decision," Meredith Baumann,
Reilly's press secretary, said in the statement. Nonetheless, one of his
Democratic rivals, Deval L. Patrick, criticized Reilly for defending the
legality of the ballot question and said the SJC ''got it right" when it
legalized gay marriage.
Since Reilly's office certified the ballot question, about 123,000
registered voters signed petitions to support it, breaking the record for
the most signatures certified in such a ballot campaign, according to the
Massachusetts Family Institute, which spearheaded the campaign. The question
must get the backing of at least 50 lawmakers in two successive legislative
sessions before it can appear on the November 2008 ballot. If the measure
passed, it would not undo same-sex marriages that have occurred since May,
17, 2004, as a result of the high court's landmark decision. But it would
halt further same-sex marriages.
--
----------
J Young
***@aol.com
----------
J Young
***@aol.com