(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

Yesterday, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that Petition K -- the proposed statewide referendum on a state constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage -- may proceed. From here it will go to the state legislature, where it must come up for a vote this year and next, and be supported by 25% of the voting legislators.

The Massachusetts state constitution contains a provision that makes it illegal to amend the constitution to reverse a decision by the Supreme Judicial Court. So, Petition K should not have even been certified, right? In any case, the SJC decided that this amendment, which would overturn their ruling in 2003 mandating that the state allow same-sex couples to marry, does not reverse their decision. Huh-wha?

It's amazing how far the rules of logic and reason will bend when it comes to hating queer people.

The next time i hear a Republican whine about "activist judges" i'm going to get on a bus and throttle them, i swear to god.

In other news i heard yesterday that Governor Romney used his line-item veto to specifically strike from the state budget its (very meager) funding for same-sex domestic violence agencies. So, in order to get any money this year, the Network La Red and the Gay Men's Domestic Violence Project will have to come up with the votes for a veto override.

Is there any way to say more clearly that you hate gay people and want them to die?

And all this, in "pointy-headed" ultra-liberal queer-loving Massachusetts.

Comments

[x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com]

The politics never ceases to amaze me. I've heard of Massachusetts being referred to repeatedly as "liberal" by others not living in this state and I just sorta blink at them.

[brontosproximo.livejournal.com]

Take heart ladies. It's all a waste of taxpayers time and effort. It'll take a bit, but the concept of a legal union between two (or more?) people who love each other is bigger than all the hot air from these people seeking re-election.

Those who say they are speaking for Jay-sus rarely know what the hell they are talking about.

The marriages that have taken place can't be nullified. You can't have multiple classes of citizens. The house of cards is going to fall and soon enough any two people of legal age will be able to form a union.

The Silver Lining...

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

...in this cloud is that, as Andrew Sullivan points out, the referendum banning gay marriage will probably be defeated by the PEOPLE of Massachusetts, which is much better than having gay marriage mandated by "activist judges."

And, if you don't think you live in a relatively "liberal" state, I suggest that you take a vacation to New Mexico.

Re: The Silver Lining...

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Okay, let's say for the sake of argument that it is ethically okay for a majority to vote on whether or not to extend a civil right to a historically despised and maligned minority. On the off-chance that the voters reject Petition K, i suppose there would be something poetic in that outcome.

But i'm offended that it is even a subject of debate. To have to endure this debate is perpetually humiliating.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

In any case, the SJC decided that this amendment, which would overturn their ruling in 2003 mandating that the state allow same-sex couples to marry, does not reverse their decision. Huh-wha?

It's not a direct reversal. That's how the state Constitution reads. A direct reversal would be a law passed by the legislature or by common referendum that tried to add new law to the books and overturn the judicial decision. I don't like it any more than you do, but this is a sound legal judgment.

We may not like it, but judges and judiciaries must deal with the law as written. Their decision about gay marriage two years ago was based on the state constitution as it was written. The people have the right to change how their state constitution is written.

State constitutions can also be challenged against the standard of the federal constitution. If this ban goes into effect, which is unlikely given the current Massachusetts legislature, it will no doubt be challenged at the federal level.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Hmm, doesn't that strike you as sophistry, though? The petition is intended to directly answer the court and as much as possible overturn and reverse the effect of their original opinion. Intent counts for a lot in law. If this doesn't count as reversal, what does -- a petition that states literally "this is to reverse the SJC's decision"?

I'm not sure i like the prospect of taking this to the federal courts.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

Intent only counts for a lot in law if you're not a legal literalist. The SJC is composed of legal literalists - that's how they were convinced that the Massachusetts constitution does not allow discrimination in marriage on the basis of sex.

I would rather take it to the federal bench while we still have the SCOTUS that we do, than five years from now when Stevens or one of the other older liberals has died and we can guarantee our rights being taken away by Scatholito & Co.

[el-christador.livejournal.com]

The Massachusetts state constitution contains a provision that makes it illegal to amend the constitution to reverse a decision by the Supreme Judicial Court.

!

That's really bizarre.

[aerope.livejournal.com]

It seems to me the key words in "same-sex domestic violence" are "domestic violence," not "same-sex." the petition can be legalistically justified, but that's just heartless.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

Is there any way to say more clearly that you hate gay people and want them to die?

Well yes. But most of those are covered by homicide and anti-harrassment laws. At least for now.