Lawmakers afraid to oust 'marriage justices'?

An activist group says Massachusetts lawmakers facing re-election are employing unprecendented and apparently illegal maneuvers to avoid confronting a bill that would remove the high-court justices who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage.

Brian Camenker, of Article 8 Alliance, says the state Legislature's Rules Committee violated legislative rules by holding a secret vote on the bill at a meeting that was not advertised in advance.

The sponsor of the bill, Democratic state Rep. Emile J. Goguen, caught wind of the meeting but was told by the committee chairman, Democratic Rep. Angelo Scaccia, it was a private "executive session" and he would have to leave.

The House of Representatives rules, however, state, "All meetings, including hearings and executive sessions, of House standing committees, and special committees of the House of Representatives, shall be open to the public and any person shall be permitted to attend any meeting except as otherwise provided by this rule."

"This is Massachusetts sleaze and we're not going to take it," Camenker told WorldNetDaily. "If these guys think we're going to go away, they're wrong."

As WND reported, Camenker's group is promoting a "bill of address," which allows lawmakers to remove judges who fail to fulfill their duties.

Goguen filed the measure in April calling for the removal of the four justices who ruled Nov. 18 that the state constitution allows same-sex marriage: Margaret H. Marshall, John M. Greaney, Roderick L. Ireland and Judith A. Cowin.

Scaccia could not be reached for comment.

Committee member Rep. Salvatore DiMasi, the House majority leader, insisted he could not comment on meeting procedures – referring WND to Scaccia – but said he voted against the bill.

"I don't believe that judges should be removed because of their interpretation of the constitution," said DiMasi, a Democrat. "If there was other wrongdoing – where they committed a crime, or where they enhanced their financial position – those are the kinds of things that would be appropriate."

In a document on its website, Article 8 argues, "By any objective measure the Supreme Judicial Court ruling mandating same-sex marriage in Massachusetts was an illegitimate and extra-constitutional act. It clearly violates constitutional boundaries and restraints, and all tradition. In fact, the most compelling statements are from the three dissenting SJC justices themselves, [including one who] actually favors the concept of same-sex marriage."

Gougen's measure was filed as a resolution, which allows for easier passage through the legislative system, but at some point in the process, it turned into a bill.

The problem is, according to Camenker, nobody seems to know how or when that transformation happened – not Gougen or even the House clerk.

Camenker says he eventually was told the 15-member committee's "secret vote" turned out 7-7, with one abstention, which he finds "fishy."

He believes about 10 panel members actually support getting the bill out of committee.

"We think that the committee does not want to touch this because they are afraid of the political repercussions ... of removing judges," he said. "Most of the reps we talk to, when the doors close, will admit [the high-court decision] was an illegal act."

Camenker still believes the bill has a chance to be brought to the floor for a vote before the legislative session ends July 31.

"I think they are using every maneuver – many of them illegal – to keep it from getting out of committee and to keep anyone from putting their name on it," he said. "We are going to do it though, we are going to get it passed."

Camenker says the November elections will force many lawmakers to take a stand. He notes more contested seats than at any time in the past decade and many conservative challengers running against incumbents who favor same-sex marriage.

The Massachusetts legislature held a constitutional convention earlier this year to craft an amendment to the state constitution that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman but allows Vermont-style civil unions, conferring virtually all the same rights and benefits of marriage.

Camenker, noting it could not be enacted until 2006, insists the problem is not the constitution but a judiciary out of control.

"The constitution has a remedy for judges that do not properly interpret law, the bill of address," he said in April. "The idea of having to amend the constitution every time there is a bad ruling – you'll be amending it all the time."

Camenker chastises pro-family groups for focusing attention on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which he thinks also will fail.

"The national Constitution doesn't need amending; the problem is because we've allowed ourselves to lose control of our own judiciary," he said.

As WorldNetDaily reported, Senate Republicans plan to force Democrats to choose sides on same-sex marriage by scheduling a vote on the amendment in mid-July.

The vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which bans same-sex marriage, would take place just as the Democratic Party prepares to begin its presidential nominating convention in Boston, according to Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper.

The Federal Marriage Amendment says, "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union between a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Popular Right Now

Watch Biden become visibly confused during speech: 'What am I doing here?'

Trump teases 2024 run: 'I may even decide to beat them for a third time'

Is America having a near-death experience, or is this the end?

GOP senator joins in the narrative twisting

'Dementia thing': DNC cut out anti-Trump mental joke for fear it would remind viewers of Biden

Trump endorses primary challenger of Republican who voted to impeach

Anti-ICE rioters smash up downtown Portland in response to Biden's child-migrant facilities

'Eating while black': N.Y. Times admits elite college scapegoated janitors in race hoax

Recently Posted