The Commonwealth Comment

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Supreme Court Makes Mitt Cry

Ok, so he didn't cry. But, the court did refuse both his proposals to the court regarding the Massachusetts legislature's refusal to vote on a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban same-sex marriages in the only state that currently allows them.

In November the legislature ended it's constitutional convention without taking a vote on that controversial issue. This sparked anger from several anti-gay marriage groups and Governor Mitt Romney.

He went before the court and asked that they force the legislature to vote on the issue, and if they refuse to that they should go over the senate and house's heads and put it on the 2008 ballot. The court, which decided in 2003 that same-sex couples have equal marriage rights, declined both of Romney's requests.

In an 11 page report the court says, "Beyond resorting to aspirational language that relies on the presumptive good faith of elected representatives, there is no presently articulated judicial remedy for the Legislature's indifference to, or defiance of, its constitutional duties." So, basically there's no power for the court to take any such action. The report went on to say that "Those members who now seek to avoid their lawful obligations, by a vote to recess without a roll call vote ... ultimately will have to answer to the people who elected them." The court did say that the legislature should vote on the matter.

The legislature meets again on January 2 for its last day of session. If the amendment is not voted on that day then it dies. If that happens, then the earliest the issue could be on a ballot is 2010.

My Opinion: This story made my day, because I do not like Mitt Romney. In 1994 when he ran for Senate against King Ted Kennedy he was for the expansion of gay rights. Today he stands on the steps of the State House as governor chanting "Let the people vote!" And people attack poor John Kerry for flip-flopping.

Romney said that the legislature is violating the people's right to petition the government by not voting. That's not true. They petitioned, the government saw it, they don't care to vote on it. I also love the fact that no one mentions the fact that thousands of signatures were collected outside supermarkets all over Massachusetts. People asked to sign a petition for wine sales in supermarkets, and then asked to sign a second copy, the anti-gay marriage petition. That makes this whole process seem real legitimate, only not so much. Wine Petition?

Can someone explain to me again about the sacredness of marriage in the United States? You know the country with the 50% divorce rate. Oh yea, then there's that part about equal protection under the law, and all men are created equal. Geez that Constitution can be a real downer!

I apologize. I don't mean to ramble on and on, but is this really an issue here anymore? It has been 4 years and we still go about our daily lives as always. 8,500 gay couples have been married in Massachusetts and the sky hasn't fallen and the Charles River isn't flowing with the blood of the innocent.

No discrimination in the Constitution of Massachusetts. The legislature doesn't have to and should not vote on this matter. Let it die on January 2nd. When the anti-gay movement collects signatures of the majority of Massachusetts residents then it should be considered the "will of the people". 150,000 signatures? That's just a the whiney kid that doesn't like to share, in this case equal rights.

You know what the real problem with Massachusetts is?! Mitt Romney is still Governor until January 4th. But, its ok. He's not around enough (212+ days out of state in 2006) for the people of Massachusetts or himself to realize it.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home