- Text smaller
- Text bigger
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has upheld the legitimacy of a proposed constitutional amendment to end same-sex marriage.
In Massachusetts, of all places – and the decision was unanimous!
More than 170,000 signatures were gathered in favor of the amendment, which says, “When recognizing marriage entered after the adoption of this amendment by the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define marriage as only the union of one man and one woman.”
If passed, the amendment would end same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts, but not affect about 8,000 same-sex couples who have “married” since 2004.
This was promptly denounced by Lee Swislow, executive director of GLAD, the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who announced:
“We aimed to stop the ballot measure with this lawsuit, but the Legislature can still do the right thing and allow marriage equality to continue in Massachusetts.”
“Marriage equality” says this man in Massachusetts, the home of the pedophile organization NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association.
There were no reports that GLAD would be at all glad to support “marriage equality” for other sexual orientations including pedophilia, bestiality and sado-masochism. And why not – since these latter three have nothing of the AIDS and syphilis death rate of sodomy?
On the day after this court decision, however, the Massachusetts Legislature ended debate on proposed constitutional amendments – without even touching this issue. And it moved to recess until Nov. 9 – two days after the election.
As Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute noted: “It’s a real cop-out” – because all that was needed to get that on the ballot was 25 percent of the Massachusetts Legislature.
This issue is causing all kinds of trouble for the presidential hope of Sen. Hillary Clinton. The Washington Times reports she has faced clear pressure on the same-sex “marriage” issue from rivals on both the left and right since New York’s highest court ruled last week that the state’s marriage laws – which do not recognize such unions – are constitutional.
In the wake of the New York ruling, Jonathan Tasini – an anti-Iraq war Democrat who plans to challenge Mrs. Clinton in the Sept. 12 Senate primary – said he was “appalled” by the decision. He said “many people in the gay community are very disappointed in” Mrs. Clinton for not supporting same-sex “marriage.”
“Discrimination is discrimination, and Hillary Clinton obviously does not get it,” he said.
Meanwhile, John Spencer, a former Yonkers mayor seeking the Republican nomination to challenge Mrs. Clinton, responded: “I trust Senator Clinton will join me in applauding this ruling.”
Mrs. Clinton did not comment initially, but when asked about it, her spokesman Philippe Reines said, “Senator Clinton supports full equality for people in committed relationships, including health insurance, life insurance and pensions, and hospital visitation – and believes we have to keep working to reach those goals.”
Think about that.
“Full equality for people in committed relationships.”
That would, admittedly, exclude bestiality. But it would surely include “peoples’ relationships” of sadomasochism as well as pedophilia – because both men and boys are people.
Mrs. Clinton opposed the Republican-sponsored marriage amendment to the Constitution, which failed to get the needed two-thirds majority in the Senate last month. She backs the federal Defense of Marriage Act – signed into law by her husband in 1996 – under which a state can’t be compelled to accept a same-sex “marriage” from another state.
The New York State Court of Appeals ruling against homosexual “marriage” last week came the same day that the Georgia Supreme Court upheld that state’s marriage amendment banning such unions.
Related special offer: