The new Constitutional Amendment petition inititive

Should you sign it? Was it watered down for the sake of expediency?

The new proposed amendment reads as follows:

"When recognizing marriages 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."

It grandfathers in all "gay marriages" up until its enactment (2008), which will continue to be "legal". The amendment does not ban civil unions or any marriage-like creation, and all of the participants said they will work with the legislature to create some arrangement which will guarantee benefits.

If the current signature drive is successful, it needs to pass two successive votes of the Legislature (with 50 votes out of 200, in each case) and would then go on the 2008 ballot.

On July 16, Governor Romney held a press conference to formally endorse the new amendment drive. He also endorsed a plan to institute "domestic partnerships" should the amendment be successful.   Click here for the full text of Governor Romney's comments at his press conference.

We cannot in good conscience support this amendment.  We see several very serious problems with it:

1. It grandfathers in all current same-sex marriages, up to 2008. It doesn't ban all homosexual marriages, as the current Travaglini-Lees amendment would. It only bans homosexual marriages that take place after the adoption of the amendment (2008) and leaves the others intact. Thus:

• There would continue to be "legal" homosexual marriages in Massachusetts for decades to come.
   
• Thus, public schools could claim that homosexual marriages exist and are "legal" and would legitimately portray them as "legal" to children, as they are doing now. Other institutions, such as insurance companies, etc., would be forced to continue to recognize same-sex marriages as legal.

2. It opens the door to full civil unions or any other pseudo-marriage device the Legislature might institute. Most of the amendments passed by other states around the country on marriage also prohibit the Legislatures from creating any other marriage-like institution or arrangement.  This new amendment only refers to "marriage" and not the associated benefits of marriage. This allows the Legislature to create any kind of legal marriage-like relationship for same-sex couples, up to and including civil unions that are exactly like marriage but without the name.

Compare this to the 2002 marriage amendment petition, sponsored by Ed Pawlick's Mass. Citizens for Marriage, which had the votes to pass but was killed by then-Senate President Tom Birmingham.  It read as follows:

[O]nly the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts. Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent, nor shall it receive the benefits or incidents exclusive to marriage from the Commonwealth, its agencies, departments, authorities, commissions, offices, officials and political subdivisions.

In 2003, the Legislature was poised to pass a civil unions bill, but the Goodridge decision made that unnecessary. Who's to say they wouldn't do it again, if they could?

Even the amendment's prime sponsor, Massachusetts Family Institute, indicated that they purposely left this opening in order to placate the opposition. In fact, they said in their written statement:

"Upon approval of our initiative petition by the Attorney General, we [sic] work with the legislature to introduce "reciprocal beneficiary" legislation."

(Work with the Legislature to introduce "reciprocal beneficiary" legislation?? This is not about maiden sisters or adult brothers wanting benefits.  Who has ever demanded reciprocal beneficiary legislation besides the homosexual lobby? )

In addition:

3.  It legitimizes the Goodridge ruling. By allowing these homosexual marriages to exist, it constitutes an official statement by the government that the unconstitutional and fraudulent SJC court decision had legal standing.

4.  It risks being overturned by federal courts. By allowing some homosexuals to "marry" and not others, it opens the door to an "equal protection" challenge in the federal courts. Recently, a federal court overturned Nebraska's newly passed constitutional amendment.

Going to the Legislature with hat in hand? The proponents of this new amendment have said that "Legislators advised marriage defenders that any amendment affecting current same-sex marriages would be 'dead on arrival' in the State House."  We disagree with that line of thinking.  We believe in confronting the legislature and telling what is right, not asking them what they will allow us to have.  Not only is it principled, but it works better.  Historically, every time the pro-family movement has taken the "conventional wisdom" advice of legislators, they have ended up with nothing.  But when we fight for something and demand it (e.g., the Parents Notification Law) we usually get it.

It's one thing to compromise and do what's "politically possible" when you're dealing with taxes, zoning codes, etc.  But the fundamental building blocks of society should not be up for horse-trading.

Federal constitution issues?  We are also very troubled that the proponents are claiming that the U.S. Constitution's prohibition of ex post facto laws would cause an ban on current same-sex "marriages" to be unconstitutional.  The VoteOnMarriage.org website says: "Under Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, it is nearly impossible to retroactively revoke rights that have been granted by judicial decree or legislative act." That's simply nonsense.  Ex post facto laws deal with punishments for crimes, which have nothing to do with this.  It certainly has no relation to so-called "rights granted by judicial decree."  It's terribly misleading for them to tell people this.

We are very concerned that this could actually set us back, not move us forward!