Mass. Governor Wants to Oppose Same-Sex Marriage Before SJC

by Jenni Parker and Fred Jackson
April 19, 2004

(AgapePress) - Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has filed emergency legislation in an effort to press the state's Supreme Judicial Court for a stay of its homosexual marriage decision.

Last November the state's highest court ruled to allow same-sex marriage and declared a 180-day time-frame for its implementation. That specified time period ends next month, and unless the court intervenes before May 17, Massachusetts will become the first state in the U.S. to sanction homosexual marriages.

The Republican Romney, displeased that Attorney General Tom Reilly will not seek a rehearing before the SJC, announced last Thursday that he wants to bypass the Democrat attorney general and take the case against homosexual marriage to the court himself.

Governor Romney feels the legality of same-sex marriage is not a question for the courts, but for the people of Massachusetts. However, the process required to allow a referendum on same-sex marriage is a lengthy one, with several legislative hurdles. The state legislature has just passed a constitutional amendment, but the voters have not yet weighed in. A referendum is scheduled to be on the Massachusetts ballot in 2006.

In the meantime, the governor is quoted as saying, "I would like the right to be able to represent the people and my own office before the courts in Massachusetts." According to Cybercast News Service reports, Romney wants the state legislature to empower him to present the case against homosexual marriage using his own counsel. The governor says he would appoint former SJC Justice Joseph R. Nolan, a harsh critic of the court's November ruling, to argue the case.

Praise from Pro-Family Crowd
The Family Research Council is commending Governor Romney for what the pro-family group characterizes as "a bold step to protect the constitutional process and check the powers of a few justices who are trying to make laws rather than interpret them."

And another pro-family group, Concerned Women for America, is also applauding the Massachusetts governor's measures, and urges state lawmakers to act immediately to allow the governor's special counsel to take the case that Reilly has refused to pursue.

Concerned Women for America's chief counsel, Jan LaRue, says Romney's efforts would have made historic patriot John Adams proud. "Adams was the principle author of the Massachusetts Constitution, and his words provide ample justification for the governor's action," she says. That document declares that the executive, judicial, and legislative branches must maintain separate powers if the state is to remain "a government of laws and not of men."

But LaRue says the four SJC justices, in their "unconscionable ruling" allowing same-sex marriage, "made themselves a government of men and not of laws." As a result, she says the legislature has taken the action it deemed appropriate in light of the ruling, to begin the process of amending the constitution, and the governor has also acted appropriately to protect that process and the citizens' right to play a part in it.

However, LaRue feels strongly that Reilly should have sought a stay from the SJC last month when the governor asked him to do so. She says the attorney general's refusal marks "the difference between a politician and a statesman."

A Flank Attack: Going After Pro-Family Groups' Tax Status
And as the homosexual marriage controversy continues both in individual states and across the country, a well-known Christian publisher is predicting the emergence of a new battle front for homosexual activists -- the tax exempt status of groups that oppose their agenda.

Joel Belz, publisher and CEO of World magazine, notes that while the nation's attention right now is on homosexuals' push to legalize same-sex marriage, it would be wise for conservative groups to prepare for the next battle. He refers to the threat to thousands of churches, schools, and other charitable organizations of losing their tax exempt status unless they abide by the homosexual activists' view of tolerance.

The Christian publisher contends that homosexual activists are equating homosexual rights and racial justice as part of a devious effort to encourage U.S. courts and policymakers to apply the same rules to both. He points to a recent Alliance Defense Fund brief that warned, "it is only a matter of time, application of legal logic, and litigation before it is claimed that sex/gender and sexual orientation/behavior 'discrimination' is akin to racial discrimination, and thus is in all instances contrary to public policy and therefore not 'entitled' to the public benefit of tax exemption."

But Belz also warns that the removal of a group's tax-exempt status, unlike the court battle over same-sex marriage, can start with a "bureaucratic whim" of the Internal Revenue Service.