No matter how you feel about gay marriage, don't you think that it's up to the people of a state to determine whether or not to allow it?

Not according to the Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders(GLAD) in Mass.

Gay marriage was "legalized" by a landmark court known as Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health in 2003. It ended "discrimination" in marriage by judicial fiat.

A number of citizens were incensed at this ruling and decided to request a ballot initiative be placed on the ballot calling for an amendment to the Mass. state constitution banning same sex marriage. Sounds like the American way, doesn't it? Letting the citizenry of a state decide what they will and will not allow in their state? Not according to GLAD. They contend that the citizens of the state can not constitutionally initiate any sort of plebacite to reverse a judicial ruling, that it can only originate from within the legislature. The REAL horror here is that they may be legally correct...Mass.'s constitution does seem to contain such a stricture. In other words, the people of the state have no voice in public policy question other than that which can be induced by one of their elected representatives. That seems to be reasonable on it's face...after all , that's why we elect representatives, to ensure that the will of the people is carried out in an orderly. measured manner, but it's discounting the fact that in todays PC world, it's the loudest minority that seems to get the most attention from the political class, and that class can be cowardly when faced with accusations of not being PC by an ultravocal minority, with the possible subsequent loss of their seats if they don't buckle to the pressure.

Seems to me that the good people of Mass. need to have TWO Constitutional reform referendums placed on the ballot in 2008. When enough people are dissatisfied with the current trend of major issues, it seems to me that it would be within their basic rights to attempt to redress those grievences with a public referendum. If they lose, fine, the people have made their voice known. But that isn't what GLAD believes. They KNOW that their position would be a hard fought one,and one where they could very possibly lose, and so would rather rely on the decision of one man in a black robe to press their agenda forward, no matter what the people may believe, and they're perfectly willing to stack the deck to ensure that the people will have no real voice in the matter.

That is could even be "legally" possible to do so points out to a flaw in the state constitution. But what else would you expect from a state that would continually re-elect an alcoholic manslaughterer to it's senior Senate seat position?

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 05:15 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 498 words, total size 3 kb.