Massachusetts legislators have 'duty'

Discussion in '2008 Archive' started by 2 Timothy2:1-4, Dec 28, 2006.

  1. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    BOSTON (BP)--The highest court in Massachusetts delivered a stinging rebuke to legislators Dec. 27, declaring that members have a "constitutional duty" to vote on a proposed marriage amendment.

    The seven justices on the Supreme Judicial Court said in the unanimous decision they had no "statutory authority" to force the legislature to vote. But they used most of the decision to spell out legislators' duties, and amendment supporters hope the decision will persuade enough legislators not to kill the amendment when a constitutional convention is convened Jan. 2, the final day of the session.

    "The members of the joint session have a constitutional duty to vote, by the yeas and nays, on the merits of all pending initiative amendments before recessing on January 2, 2007," Justice John M. Greaney wrote for the court. "... The members of the General Court [the legislature] are the people's elected representatives, and each one of them has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the Commonwealth.

    "Those members who now seek to avoid their lawful obligations, by a vote to recess without a roll call vote by yeas and nays on the merits of the initiative amendment (or by other procedural vote of similar consequence), ultimately will have to answer to the people who elected them."


    http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=24679
     
  2. baptistteacher

    baptistteacher
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is it true? A court that is willing to say to the legislature "Do your job," instead of doing it for them by legislating from the bench?

    Keep us posted on this story.
     
  3. baptistteacher

    baptistteacher
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Anything new on this?
     
  4. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    Massachusetts marriage amendment advances
    [SIZE=+1]Hurdle to 1-man-1-woman constitutional definition overcome[/SIZE]





    State lawmakers in Massachusetts, facing the possibility of personal liability for refusing to follow the state Constitution, have blinked, and voted to allow a voter-supported initiative that would define marriage in the state as between one man and one woman only to move forward. It's just another step in the long process defined by the state Constitution to amend that document, but it is significant because of the imposition of "gay" marriages in that state – the first state to take such action – after the state Supreme Judicial Court determined they must be allowed.


    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53615
     
  5. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    Massachusetts marriage amendment overcomes opposition, passes



    BOSTON (BP)-In an action that surprised even some conservatives, Massachusetts legislators Jan. 2 passed a proposed constitutional marriage amendment just hours before it would have died as the session ended.
    The amendment, which would protect the natural definition of marriage statewide, now must pass once more in the next session if it is to appear on the 2008 ballot. If adopted, it would reverse a landmark court ruling from 2003 that legalized "gay marriage."
    Just days ago the amendment appeared doomed. Legislators met in a constitutional convention three times in recent months but recessed each date without giving the proposal an up-or-down vote. Many observers thought the same thing would happen Jan. 2, the last day of the legislative session. Instead, the amendment received 62 votes-12 more than required under state law. Voting against it were 134 members. Under state law the proposal needed the support of only one-fourth of legislators in the 200-member chamber.
    "It was a miracle," Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, told Baptist Press. "We did everything possible that we could do over the last year and a half to get to this point.... Nobody gave us a plugged nickel's chance and yet God made it happen."
    A record 170,000 Massachusetts citizens signed petitions to qualify the amendment for legislative consideration, and Mineau and other amendment supporters were confident they had the 50 votes for passage. But when legislators met in November, opponents of the amendment-knowing it could pass if given a chance-voted 109-87 to recess until Jan. 2.


    http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/6840.article
     
  6. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    'Marriage' amendment OK'd for vote

    By Cheryl Wetzstein
    THE WASHINGTON Times


    The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court yesterday upheld the legitimacy of a proposed constitutional amendment to end same-sex "marriage," saying "no error" was made in the measure's certification.
    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.
    The unanimous decision comes as Massachusetts lawmakers are scheduled to gather tomorrow for their first vote on the amendment. Fifty out of 200 lawmakers must approve the amendment in successive sessions for it to go before the voters, possibly in 2008.
    Yesterday's ruling is a setback for homosexual rights groups, who hoped the high court would derail the effort by saying state Attorney General Tom Reilly incorrectly certified the amendment.
    Instead, amendment supporters were cheering the ruling. "As we have said all along, VoteOnMarriage.org had complete confidence in the integrity and constitutionality of the amendment," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.

    http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060710-115237-7208r.htm
     

Share This Page

Loading...