I didn't see this coming. The Massachusetts legislature did the right thing. The state constitution mandates that a constitutional convention of both houses of the legislature vote on ballot questions that gather enough signatures and meet the approval of state officials. The ballot question affirming traditional, one man/one woman marriage received more signatures than any question in the history of the state. On the last day of the legislative session, the constitutional convention voted, finally, on the question. Just sixty-two legislators approved the question out of 200 or so in the body. But the state's constitution requires that only one-fourth of the legislators approve a ballot question. At some point over the next two years, fifty or more legislators must again approve the question for it to appear on an actual ballot. And even then, overturning judge-made law may prove difficult. Massachusetts is not only a left-wing state, but by the time that its citizens vote on marriage--presuming that the legislature doesn't succeed in unconstitutionally blocking the vote--the judge-made law codifying gay "marriage" will have been on the books for more than four years. The conservative impulse of not changing the status quo, ironically, is what the anti-democratic radicals instituting gay "marriage" through judicial fiat are counting on.

The first official act of our newly elected Governor was to stand before the legislature and, essentially, tell them to disregard the constitution. Great, huh!?

Contributors to his campaign calling markers in early as it were.

Anyway, even though they literally had to roust members of the General Court out of the bathrooms to get a quorum, enough of them ultimately did the right thing.

Romney's last act of power contributed to putting the pressure on.

I have to think this enhances Romney's standing within conservative circles for '08. He was the lameduck, yet he won and the incoming governor, one who, as you correctly point out instructed lawmakers to act against the law, lost.

Romney understands the basis and rules of law and governance. Patrick does not and doesn’t much care as long as his leftist / socialist agenda can be carried forward. It’s going to be a long four years.

It amazes me that this is still considered a hot-button issue in Massachusetts. Enough already! The state surely has better things to worry about. People are leaving Massachusetts in droves, young professionals especially. The economy is bad. Nearly all the big businesses Massachusetts had have been bought by out-of-state corporations. Fleet is gone. Gillette is gone. Those corporations are no longer donating money to city charities or supporting local professional services firms, using their dollars elsewhere (in their home base states). Massachusetts is a shell of its former self and is no more of an economic power than is Nebraska. No one seems to want to talk about these issues. Instead, gay marriage is back on the headlines.

If we must discuss gay marriage, then I must confess that I disagree with the general sentiment here. And your "reasoning" for opposing it is atrocious! The rhetoric you all use is beyond imprecise--it is wrong. ASDF says that gay marriage is "disregarding the Constitution." Really? Where is the language in the Massachusetts Constitution that is contrary to gay marriage? Any textual support for your statement, or was that hot air?

Also, you people need to stop using words you do not understand. Judges do not codify laws. Legislatures codify laws. A good book for you is Vocabulary For The College Bound Student by Harold Levine. It is available on amazon.com and wherever fine books are sold. Buy it. I recommend it.

Reader: Just as the constitution doesn't outlaw gay marriage, it doesn't demand it. The courts in Massachusetts said that the constitution of Massachusetts--a 227-year-old document--mandated gay marriage. Gay marriage became the law in Massachusetts because of the courts. That is why language referring to judges making law or codifying gay marriage is used. Courts shouldn't make law. But, unfortunately, they do. Roe v. Wade is an example of this. Gay marriage in Massachusetts is too. I think that judge-made law is illegitimate. But there is no denying that it exists.

I don't want to speak for ASDF, but I think that it's pretty obvious that when he talks about unconstitutionality with regard to this case, he's referring to the legislature disregarding the Massachusetts constitution's directive that the legislature vote on ballot initiatives when it is presented with them. A large portion of the legislature, and the incoming governor, tried to block the vote. The constitution is clear: they must vote. Even Massachusetts' screwed up high court acknowledged this.

Sorry, but I don't have any books to recommend for you. My suggestion is that you read posts and comments more carefully before weighing in on them. Also, you might want to avoid such phrases as "you people" and "you all."

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court sensibly held that the state did not have the power to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The decision is rooted in the Equal Protection Clause of the Massachusetts Constitution. The equal protection provision is on the books of the Massachusetts Constitution whether you like it or not.

Your policy preferences are contrary to the Federalist Papers and our system of government and are, instead, consonant with mob rule.

The role of judges in our democracy is to prevent the legislature and governmental bodies from denying citizens rights provided by the Constitution. This is arguably THE chief function of our courts! In Goodrich, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court exercised its duty to strike down a law denying equal protection to all Massachusetts citizens with regards to marriage licenses. How is that contrary to the Constitution?

You are biting a big bullet by saying "I think that judge-made law is illegitimate." Blacks and women got the right to vote from "judge-made law." Miscenagation (I think that one is in Vocabulary for the College Bound Student) was struck down due to "judge-made law."

And what is "judge-made law" anyway? Anytime a judge strikes down a federal or local governmental statute or ordinance that is "judge-made law". Is it really your position that every law every city, town, locality and Congress has enacted has been constitutional? And that judges should be powerless to strike down those laws no matter the circumstances? Where is THAT in our Constitution? And how do your policy preferences differ from mob rule?

What if Congress enacted a statute tomorrow mandating that all Flynn Files readers are to be shot on Saturday morning at dusk? Would it be illegitimate "judge-made law" if the United States Supreme Court struck down that law as unconstitutional? If no, you are consistent but stupid. If yes, your position is inconsistent and baseless.

What provisions in the Massachusetts Constitution are you legal scholars at Flynn Files referring to?

I will refrain from using terms such as "you all" if it bothers you.

Reader, gays were not actively being denied the ability to marry. The law for marriage simply did not include same sex marriage in it's definition. Nothing prevented gays from using the legislative process same as everyone else to change the law to include gay marriage. What the court did was to invent a right to gay marriage and then order the legislature to create gay marriage. Judge made law is illegitimate as the SJC weirdly admitted in it's latest opinion concerning the ballot initiative, saying that it had no authority to force the legislature to vote during the ConCon (an authority it previously exercised in Goodridge).

Reader: The rights in the Constitution, Massachusetts and U.S., were arrived at through the democratic process, i.e., through representatives, or in some instances with regard to Massachusetts, through ballot questions. All rights, and all law, in a republican form of government--the type that we have--come from the people. The right to vote, I should add is a most basic right--the very right that those crying for gay marriage rights in the Bay State seek to take away.

The Equal Protection clause of the Massachusetts constitution says nothing about gay marriage. Anyone interpreting it as saying it does is simply inserting words into the Constitution that do not exist there. It is dishonesty, and a usurpation of the people's right to govern themselves.

Judges didn't give blacks or women the vote. States recognized those rights. (Are you really that unfamiliar with U.S. history and the Constitution?). Then, to bring all the states into uniformity, the states and their and the people's representatives added Constitutional Amendments. See, for instance, the nineteenth amendment for female suffrage, and the fifteenth and the twenty-fourth for ensuring blacks the ballot. That was done through the democratic process. The people can be wrong, as your "mob rule" quip alludes to, but judges can be too and that's something you don't seem to recognize when judges rule in a manner that massages your political views (but conflicts with their duties as impartial arbiters of law).

Reader: calm down, stop ringing your hands and try to control your hissy fit. You’ve misquoted and misdirected your response and it seems clear that if you would have bothered to read the posts more thoroughly, you would be clear on what was being communicated.

'ASDF says that gay marriage is "disregarding the Constitution." Really?’

Right back at ya' – Really? No, not really. Didn’t write, say or even think that. As has been said, the point was relative to the disregard of the Mass. State Constitution by those elected to uphold that constitution. In fact, the issue related to that disregard could have been any. It just so happens that, in this case, it relates to allowing the people to vote (or not?) on something that should not have been turned by some leftist judge making law from the bench.

Atavist:

Persecuted minority groups are not equipped to make use of the legislative process. They simply do not have enough willpower or financial backing. The courts are charged with protecting their rights.

When you say that judge made law is illegitimate, what exactly do you mean? When, for example, is interpreting the equal protection clause "judge-made law" and when is it legitimate? How do you respond to the following hypothetical (which Dan Flynn did not respond to):

Congress passes a law tomorrow mandating that all Flynn Files readers are to be shot on Saturday morning at dusk. The case appears before the United States Supreme Court. What is your position? If you say that you should not hang, then you are being inconsistent, for it would be "judge-made law" to oppose the law. If you say that you should hang because any law Congress passes is legitimate, then, well, with all due respect, you are an idiot.

Dan Flynn:

You confuse the right to vote (what the Constitution protects) with the right to vote on a specific issue. That is embarrassing. The Constitution protects the right to vote. It does not protect the right to vote on whatever issues one chooses.

Article 1 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (incorporated into the Constitution): "...Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin."

Massachusetts was denying marriage licenses based on sex. The Massachusetts Constitution says that equality under the law shall not be denied because of sex. Does not seem like a big leap of logic to me.

I do recognize that judges can be wrong. I have never said otherwise. You are the one staking an extremist position. Not me. You said that "judge-made law" is always bad. I say that judges sometimes get it right and sometimes get it wrong. In my view, the judges did get it right in Goodridge. I have yet to hear a coherent argument from any of you why the judges in Goodridge got it wrong (as an actual matter of law--as opposed to simply not liking the result).

There are numerous elected gay officials in Massachusetts. Repeated polls done by the local media show support for gay unions of some kind. There was nothing preventing the issue from being part of the normal legislative process.

In the Goodridge decision, the court ordered the legislature to create gay marriage and gave a deadline of 180 days. As was asked by John Derbyshire at the time, “Could you, or some friendly reader, please instruct me as to where, in the Massachusetts State Constitution, there is a clause authorizing the judiciary of that state to "order" the legislature to legislate in a certain way?” Can you find it?

The SJC couldn't. As it said in the recent case concerning the constitutional requirement of the legislature to vote on the issue of the gay ballot initiative, the court has no authority to order the legislature to do anything.

I don't deny that the court's role is to interpret the constitution, but there are limits to interpretation that are imposed by virtue of the fact that words having meaning. It's clear that in Goodridge that words were stretched beyond what they could mean in an attempt to reach a specific conclusion. The decision of the court was not unanimous. I suggest you read the dissents.

Your hypothetical makes no sense to me. In the issue of gay marriage there was no law passed which specifically singled out gays and denied them marriage. All that is on the books is marriage as it was and always has been defined in this state. As I already said, nothing prevented changes being made to the marriage law to accommodate gays.

Yeah I'm sure our great-grandkids will hail Mass's anti-gay action as heroic when thier sipping thier mohitos on the coast of Wyoming.

You all are brainless fag-hating bigots.

You conservative bigots are the same people who 30 years ago would have been trying to stop blacks from marrying whites.

As soon as racism became taboo you moved on to easier prey.

You all are nothing but shameless bullies who get off on opressing other human beings.

Stop baiting. No one's biting.

I would wear little shorts on the job and what not, and they would fire bricks, pipes and little bottles of beer at me and what not and I don't go that way....

live cam chat mwv live cam chat http://home.earthlink.net/~folder1965/webcams/live-cam-chat.html
live mwv live http://home.earthlink.net/~folder1965/webcams/live-sex-cam.html
web cams mwv web cams http://home.earthlink.net/~folder1965/webcams/adult-web-cams.html
live mwv live http://home.earthlink.net/~folder1965/webcams/live-web-cam-chat.html
webcams mwv webcams http://home.earthlink.net/~folder1965/webcams/adult-webcams.html
cam mwv cam http://home.earthlink.net/~folder1965/webcams/teen-cam.html
direct sex live mwv direct sex live http://home.earthlink.net/~folder1965/webcams/direct-sex-live.html
sex chat mwv sex chat http://home.earthlink.net/~folder1965/webcams/free-live-sex-chat.html

Who's baiting? You're thugs and bullies and it needs to be said. I could give a rat's member if you respond.

Read: Your thugs and bullies, and I base that opinion in no way on your behavior. Instead, "Thugs and bullies" simply denotes people with whom I disagree.

Ben:

I would say he called conservatives bullies based on the definition of a bully as someone motivated to hurt others or take things away from them solely because they derive personal satisfaction from it. Bullies don't need to be harmed or provoked to do harm to others, and there doesn't have to be anything to gain through the bullying other than the sociopathic pleasure they get.

Considering that so much effort is being made by one group to harm the interest of another group, I'd say bullying is going on. Most of them have merely contributed their signature to the petition without going through extraordinary effort and have probably either been convinced that they do have something to gain, or they feel that signing the petition is in line with the morals of their church or religion.

But there are a lot of bullies amongst that movement. Who else would find it worth so much time, effort, and money to go out and actually do the work to collect all those signatures?

Bullies? You want bullies? Take a look at the so-called bullies in the defensive camp of the "marriage" issue who don't want it put to a vote and don't want the process played out legally!

What I see is a typical liberal / leftist attempt to censor and dissuade support for something they just don't want to see happen.

Leftist Gestapo tactics at its finest and most obvious.

If you think you're entitled to control how other people live their lives, it's going to look like bullying to you when people try to stop you. But they are stopping you to defend a right, not to make you angry just for fun.

I find it interesting you mentioned the Gestapo, which was allowed to operate without judicial oversight, when you are the one wanting to overrule the judges.

order soma

ASDF:

"Take a look at the so-called bullies in the defensive camp of the 'marriage' issue who don't want it put to a vote and don't want the process played out legally!"

Huh? The process already has played out legally. A legal decision was issued by the highest court in the state holding that Massachusetts cannot discriminate in giving out marriage licenses based on gender. Get over it already!

"What I see is a typical liberal / leftist attempt to censor and dissuade support for something they just don't want to see happen."

Is it just me or does this guy sound straight out of the Turner Diaries?

"Leftist Gestapo tactics at its finest and most obvious."

Brian Rogers nailed you on this one. The Gestapo thrived in the ABSENCE of a robust and independent judiciary, not because of a robust and independent judiciary.

Brian Rogers:

Since it is gays who are demanding that the state issue marriage licenses two them, they are making two key coercive claims against others:

A.) That others consent to have their tax dollars (taken from them without consent) used to administer gay marriages.

B.) That the rest of society accept their marriage as perfectly valid and no different from a heterosexual marriage.

These are both demands made *by* the homosexual community, *against* the rest of society. Since the homosexual community is the one guilty of coercive behavior, it cannot be that those who campaign against gay marriage are engaged in the bullying.

You're really reaching there. Your argument, based on the assumption that other people's actions should be subject to your approval, demonstrates the bully mentality I was talking about. What if the gays don't want you to get married?

based on the assumption that other people's actions should be subject to your approval.

If gay men and lesbians want their marriages recognized by government then Ben-T's assumption appears to be correct.

"You're really reaching there. Your argument, based on the assumption that other people's actions should be subject to your approval, demonstrates the bully mentality I was talking about. What if the gays don't want you to get married?" -Brian Rogers

I don't think the government should perform heterosexual marriages.

Amen to Brian Rodgers. Y'all are nothing but bullies. If it wasn't gays then it'd be blacks or asians.

Anything to get you boys off and make you feel better about your pathetic lives.

Ben-T:

Your logic is embarrasingly bad and demonstrates a lack of understanding about equal protection cases generally and this Massachusetts matter in particular.

Massachusetts issues marriage licenses. That is a fact. The plaintiff in the case tried to get a marriage license but was denied one based on her gender. The onus is not on the individual requesting the marriage license to prove to the state why she should get one (as you would have it). Rather, the onus is on the state to justify the disparate treatment. The state must show good cause for granting marriage licenses to some people, but denying licenses to others.

This is true in all equal protection cases. Any time an individual asserts that the state is treating him/her differently it is up to the state to justify the different treatment. The state could not meet its burden in this case.

You engage in bogus rhetoric by asserting that the Massachusetts gays are demanding something. Actually, the Massachusetts gays are not demanding anything. They have been allowed to marry for over a year. You may even be surprised to learn that the gods have yet to punish Massachusetts for this (there have been no meteor showers or tsunamis).

The conservative fanatics are the ones who will not let this issue die. These are the nutballs who are taking days off from work (i.e., not milking cows that day) to protest on the steps of the State House and to call for a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gays from marrying.

"[The Massachusetts gays] have been allowed to marry for over a year. You may even be surprised to learn that the gods have yet to punish Massachusetts for this (there have been no meteor showers or tsunamis)." -Reader, most recent post

"Enough already! The state surely has better things to worry about. People are leaving Massachusetts in droves, young professionals especially. The economy is bad. Nearly all the big businesses Massachusetts had have been bought by out-of-state corporations. Fleet is gone. Gillette is gone. Those corporations are no longer donating money to city charities or supporting local professional services firms, using their dollars elsewhere (in their home base states). Massachusetts is a shell of its former self and is no more of an economic power than is Nebraska." -Reader, earlier post

Maybe the gods don't punish exclusively with meteor showers and tsunamis!

Of course, I don't seriously believe that there is any direct causal relation between Mass. gay marriage and the sliding economic situation. However, I'd hold out on the possibility that there might be some systemic cultural problems that draw the issues together somehow.

"Massachusetts issues marriage licenses. That is a fact. The plaintiff in the case tried to get a marriage license but was denied one based on her gender. The onus is not on the individual requesting the marriage license to prove to the state why she should get one (as you would have it). Rather, the onus is on the state to justify the disparate treatment. The state must show good cause for granting marriage licenses to some people, but denying licenses to others."

Actually, it would be on anyone getting married (regardless of sexual orientation) to prove to the rest of the society why they ought be violently coerced by the state into paying for and putting their approval on the marriage. Which is why all state-performed marriages, regardless of sexuality, are invalid.

It is clear that state-performed heterosexual marriages are not going to be repealed anytime soon. But any friend of liberty should always fight against any kind of expansion of state power, so any true friend of liberty should be against the state expanding the scope of its power to perform marriage.

Ben-T:

Now we're getting somewhere. I agree that the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage. That would be my preferred way to resolve this issue.

But I find your view on liberty to be impractical and superficial. That your money is being taken away from you is a legitimate complaint, one which I believe needs to be weighed against the benefits to liberty that can be achieved through the government's use of that money. However, I fail to see any harm to you past the quantity of money that was taken. Whatever is actually done with the money, it does not automatically affect you.

If you are taxed for some other couple's marriage, you ought to be able to receive what you already paid for; it reduces your net loss of both money and liberty. This is why while attempting to remove culture from law, any true friend of liberty should attempt to keep people equal during the process.

"But I find your view on liberty to be impractical and superficial. That your money is being taken away from you is a legitimate complaint, one which I believe needs to be weighed against the benefits to liberty that can be achieved through the government's use of that money." -Brian Rodgers

This is the key concept in your passage. The idea that you can achieve *liberty* (actually power, as in the power of any given actor to perform any given action, since liberty refers only to an absence of physical coercion) by engaging in coercion against others, and have that be morally valid.

We disagree.

Your definition of liberty is extremely black-and-white. If liberty is an absence of physical coercion, then having liberty is impossible. There's always a risk of being the victim of crime, for example. When absolute freedom from coercion is impossible, the best you can do is try to minimize that coercion.

Maybe you don't want to pay the tax for our criminal justice system, but that doesn't change the fact that the coercion from criminals you would be exposed to if there were no police exceeds the coercion you experience paying taxes. That is what justifies my "coercion against others." We are a democracy, not an anarchy, precisely so you have a say in the matter.

"Your definition of liberty is extremely black-and-white. If liberty is an absence of physical coercion, then having liberty is impossible. There's always a risk of being the victim of crime, for example. When absolute freedom from coercion is impossible, the best you can do is try to minimize that coercion." -Brain Rodgers

The state minimizing coercion? Laughable. The state is a far greater coercive force than any criminal organization which has ever existed.

"Maybe you don't want to pay the tax for our criminal justice system, but that doesn't change the fact that the coercion from criminals you would be exposed to if there were no police exceeds the coercion you experience paying taxes. That is what justifies my "coercion against others." We are a democracy, not an anarchy, precisely so you have a say in the matter." -Brian Rodgers.

No. If the state, which is a far more coercive force than any criminal organization, did not force us to pay it its "Protection" money (just like any organized crime outfit does) people would choose to protect themselves in a number of ways, either through use of personal arms or crime & punishment insurance firms.

Nor does the state protect us from criminals. The only time in which the state actually actively protects one from criminals is in the extremely rare circumstance in which a crime is committed in the immediate presence of a police officer.What the state offers is a incentive not to commit crime, in the knowledge that there is a police force that will hunt one down.

This knowledge would exist to the same degree when the criminal does not know whether his potential victim is armed, or if there would be those willing to pay for him to be brought to justice.

Couldn't a landowner, in this libertarian paradise you describe, legitimately acquire more and more land over time from consenting sellers? And isn't he allowed to set rules which must be followed on his land? If you don't agree with his rules, you don't have to live there, and you certainly aren't entitled to live there. Controlling what he can do with his property is coercion, after all.

So you agree to his terms (which he calls 'laws') and lease a section of his land. In common language, you'd say you own some land, but technically he is still the owner. Every year, you make your rental payment (known as a 'tax'), which he uses to, among other things, pay the salaries of his security guards (known as 'police'). By living on his land, you've agreed that his security guards can arrest you for breaking the rules, and you've agreed to settle all disputes through his arbitrators (known as 'judges').

Now imagine all that as an alternate history that leads up to this day. Wouldn't that make the US government legitimate by your standards? I believe the state of the world has to be justified here and now. Isn't it a problem when your effective rights are determined hundreds of years before you were born?