It's Not all Rosy in Massachusetts, Despite Pro-Marriage Court Ruling
by Mary Rettig, Fred Jackson, and Jody Brown
July 11, 2006
(AgapePress) - - An attorney for the American Family Association says a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) will not nullify current same-sex "marriages," regardless what happens in 2008. And comments from two of the SJC justices indicate they would not be inclined to reverse their earlier decision legalizing those marriages -- even if voters were to approve a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage.
The same Massachusetts court that legalized homosexual marriage in 2004 ruled unanimously on Monday (July 10) that a proposed amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage can be placed before the citizens of the state on a ballot. But before that can happen at least 50 state lawmakers -- one-quarter of the Legislature -- must approve of the measure in two consecutive legislative sessions. That means the soonest the ballot measure could appear would be in 2008. The Legislature is expected to take up the matter on Wednesday (July 12) during a constitutional convention.
A homosexual advocacy group had challenged Attorney General Tom Reilly's approval of the ballot measure because the state constitution bars any citizen-initiated amendment that seeks to reverse a judicial ruling. The SJC disagreed, saying the constitution does not bar such efforts, even if it effectively overrules the effect of a prior court decision.
While he says he is encouraged by the ruling, Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the AFA Center for Law & Policy, points that even if same-sex marriages are eventually banned in the Bay State, the current status quo will remain.
Brian Fahling | |
"If it is adopted or ratified by the people of the state, then what you'll have is essentially 7,000 same-sex married couples," says Fahling. "Those numbers will be forever fixed, if you will." The attorney feels that does not bode well for the radical homosexual agenda. "Really, you've got a fixed number of 7,000 same-sex marriages where, essentially, it's meaningless outside the state of Massachusetts," he says. That said, however, Fahling says he was pleasantly surprised to see the decision coming from the state's high court on Monday. "Now, suddenly, they're finding some judicial restraint. I think the decision is a good one," he continues. "They ruled that the [proposed] ban on same-sex marriage that was in the legislature was constitutional. And if it makes it outside the legislature to the people, they'll get an opportunity to vote on it."
Fahling says if the measure does pass with the voters, it will be a huge blow to the homosexual agenda around the country. For a state to legalize same-sex unions, only to turn around and ban it a few years later, he says, sends a strong message that those types of relationships really are not marriage after all.
Meanwhile, comments from two of the Massachusetts justices in Monday's decision indicate they still have a strong bias in favor of homosexual marriage. Reuters News quotes them as saying even if a referendum is passed supporting only traditional marriage, the court may be reluctant to reverse its original decision to legalize same-sex marriage.
Justices John Greaney and Roderick Ireland wrote that a law banning same-sex marriage would look "starkly out of place" in the state constitution -- and that legalization of the unions may be irreversible because it is now part of the "fabric of the equality and liberty" guaranteed in the constitution.
"The only effect of a positive vote [on a referendum to amend the constitution protecting traditional marriage] will be to make same-sex couples, and their families, unequal to everyone else," they said. "This is discrimination in its rawest form."
