A voter casts her ballot during the Massachusetts special election for U.S. Senate inside the Emmanuel Episcopal Church in Boston, Massachusetts on January 19, 2010. The race is between Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley to fill the U.S. Senate seat left empty by the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA). UPI/Matthew Healey

An amendment of the Massachusetts Constitution proposed by Democrats could virtually put an end to citizen-initiated referenda in the state.

The amendment, proposed jointly by state Rep. Byron Rushing in the House and by state Sen. Cynthia Stone Creem in the Senate, would exclude any citizen petition that deals with issues concerning a person’s right to “the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, according to standing laws.”

Massachusetts Family Association President Kris Mineau opposes the amendment, asserting it would have a chilling effect on the people of Massachusetts.

Get the instructions for the making and maintenance of the United States: the Constitution!

“If the amendment passes the legislature and it goes all the way through, it would virtually eliminate the citizen’s right to petition in Massachusetts,” Mineau said.

“Oh yes, life, liberty or property. I can’t think of a single piece of legislation that doesn’t affect life, liberty or property in some way,” Mineau added.

Mineau believes there’s a deeper reason for the proposal.

“It’s absolutely the objective of the amendment’s sponsors to shut out the voters. Again, this would be a disenfranchisement of the citizens. They don’t believe we’re sophisticated enough to make decisions that only the elite elected officials are,” Mineau stated.

“That’s why this November’s election is so critical, both in the nation and in the commonwealth (of Massachusetts),” Mineau observed.

Although it was stated nowhere specifically, the change would appear to prevent any family issues from being brought to voters, such as a constitutional amendment that marriage is limited to one man and one woman, as dozens of states already have done.

Republican state Sen. Richard Ross, who won the special election to fill U.S. Sen. Scott Brown’s statehouse seat, says he’s opposed to the amendment.

“The people should have the right to have the initiative petition, and I’ve been a supporter of the petition process in the past,” Ross said.

State Rep. Brad Hill also says he supports citizen petitions.

One of the opponents is House Minority Leader Brad Jones. The Republican state representative believes the proposal is done.

“It’s a ridiculous proposal, and it’s not going anywhere,” Jones said.

The measure has solid support, however. Senate Bill 23 received only one dissenting vote and was reported out of the Legislature’s Joint Judiciary Committee with an “ought to pass” recommendation.

The amendment states, “No proposition inconsistent with any one of the following rights of the individual, as at present declared in the declaration of rights … shall be the subject of an initiative or referendum petition.”

Rushing and Creem were unavailable for comment, and the current constitutional-convention meetings have been adjourned. A clerk’s office source in the state Senate said no date has been scheduled for another meeting.

But Mineau warns the issue isn’t finished.

“It’s not going to go away. It will be back. The ruling elite don’t believe we’re smart enough to decide anything for ourselves, so no, it’s not dead,” Mineau said.

Related offers:

Get the instructions for the making and maintenance of the United States: the Constitution!

“The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom”

“The Gay Agenda: It’s Dividing the Family, the Church, and a Nation”

“See how Americans and their Constitution have been betrayed by judge-made law”

Previous stories:

Will death threats by ‘gays’ convince judges?

Justices deciding whether Christians deserve bull’s-eye

Vote for marriage? You’re on a hit list

Voted for Prop 8? You’re fired

Talk show terminated after Prop 8 discussion

Supremes to review ‘gay’ lawsuits against Prop. 8

Watch church lady meet same-sex ‘marriage’ protesters

Watch sparks fly as ‘gay’ activist mob swarms Christians

‘Gays’ demand endorsement of lifestyle

‘Gay’ threats target Christians over same-sex ‘marriage’ ban

School holds surprise ‘Gay’ Day for kindergartners

School takes 1st–graders to see lesbian teacher wed

‘Gay’ marriage battle goes to kindergarten

‘Bride,’ ‘groom’ can’t marry in California

County surrenders in same-sex marriage war

Counties to Supreme Court on ‘gay’ marriage: Drop dead

‘Gay’ rights group to Supremes: Don’t let people vote

It’s voters vs. black robes in November

County clerks urged to ignore same-sex marriage ruling

‘Gay’ marriage ruling to spark lawsuits nationwide

Whoa! Marriage laws aren’t changed – yet

Supremes asked to give voters a chance

City clerk suing not to wed ‘gays’

California battle over same-sex marriage not over

Black robes trash traditional marriage

California’s ‘judicial fiat’ condemned – by judge

Plan pushes for last step in eliminating marriage

Court asked to protect 1-man, 1-woman marriage

Pro-marriage groups: ‘Don’t trust courts!’

Gov. Arnold ‘terminates’ man-and-woman marriage plan

Gov. Arnold says ‘marriage’ can be terminated

California handing out marriage privileges

‘Marriage’ to become museum piece

Homosexual marriage minces west to California

Court will decide if California voters were right

Vote or pay us damages, group tells lawmakers

7 more states say no to ‘gay marriage’

Same-sex rulings will ‘echo’ across U.S.

Senate rejects ‘gay marriage’ ban

California Senate OKs ‘gay’ marriage

Mayor faces trial for same-sex marriages

60% of polled Americans: No homosexual marriage

It’s ‘gay’ marriage in Massachusetts

Poll: Massachusetts opposes ‘gay’ marriage

‘Gay’ marriage ruling’s consequences ‘dire’

‘Gay’ marriage ban struck down in Massachusetts

Bush to block ‘gay’ marriage

Poll suggests backlash on ‘gay’ issues

Court strikes down Texas sodomy law

Supreme Court hears ‘right to sodomy’ case

High court to give ‘gays’ their own ‘Roe’?

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.