Motion filed to dismiss Massachusetts ruling

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, May 5, 2004

[JohnHuang2]

With just two weeks until Massachusetts enacts same-sex marriage, two noted state citizens filed a motion yesterday to dismiss the November high court decision upon which the new law is based.

The Supreme Judicial Court "effectively amended" the Massachusetts constitution, charge Ray Flynn, former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican and mayor of Boston from 1984 to 1993; and Thomas A. Shields, a Boston businessman.

A Boston attorney, the Alliance Defense Fund, and the Law and Liberty Institute filed the motion on their behalf in the case of Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health.

According to the motion, the Nov. 18, 2003, decision redefined the term "marriage."

In the Goodridge opinion, the Supreme Judicial Court called its construction of marriage a "reformulation," the Flynn and Shields note.

However, the term "marriage" is in the Massachusetts constitution, their attorneys argue, and the authority to amend the constitution resides only in the people of Massachusetts, not in the courts or any other branch of government.

"No party in this lawsuit discussed the issue of jurisdiction before the court," said Benjamin Bull, chief counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. "Only the people, not the courts can amend the state constitution. It's certainly not too late to raise it now."

"At no point during the progress of litigation is it too late to consider whether there is absence of authority to proceed," he said.

Alliance says, because the Goodridge decision is tantamount to an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution, the Superior Court judge may grant the motion, dismiss the case, and make the Goodridge opinion inoperative.

As the motion points out, the attorneys say, backdoor constitutional amendments such as the Goodridge decision have been condemned in other opinions by the SJC.

"If the court rules against the motion to dismiss, the Massachusetts constitution will have become the instrument of judicial whim and tyranny, and not the democratic bulwark it once was," Bull said.

"This is one of the many reasons that the people who wrote the constitution of Massachusetts placed the power to amend the constitution in the hands of the people, and not in the hands of judges."

[TheConservator]

Don't hold your breath.

[ThirstyMan]

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, under the "leadership" of Chief Justice Marshall, has simply stormed the cockpit on this issue and wrestled control away from the people. A bold audacious terrorist move! Their tyranny must be stopped!

By a one vote margin [4-3] their elitist decision is about to force us all to sanction a very questionable practice that we do not want sanctioned!

Judges must not be allowed to shape our world by inventing laws and rights. The moral balance of the legislature must be restored. This is so sickening!

Go Ray Flynn!

Never thought I'd be saying that.

[Paleo Conservative]

The Supreme Judicial Court "effectively amended" the Massachusetts constitution, charge Ray Flynn, former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican and mayor of Boston from 1984 to 1993;

Rather ironic -- a DemocRAT party insider complaining about judicial activism.

[ninonitti]

Same for me.....politics makes for strange bedfellows and it just doesn't get any stranger than here in Massachusetts.

Now if we can keep Raybo sober long enough to jump in front of the cameras we will get some coverage of this travesty.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

"If the court rules against the motion to dismiss, the Massachusetts constitution will have become the instrument of judicial whim and tyranny, and not the democratic bulwark it once was," Bull said.

Duh. Crossed that bridge a long time ago.

[muawiyah]

Why doesn't the Massachusetts legislature simply impeach and remove the members of the court, then put them up on charges, and then execute them ~ in roughy that order, although exactness is not needed to get across the message.

That'd certainly put their successors on notice.

[Honorary Serb]

The petitioners are right--the crazies on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court HAVE redefined marriage--in such a way to render the term MEANINGLESS!!!!

Of course, don't expect these "human rightser" judges to overturn their own ruling. Like all "human rigtsers", these birds believe that they are annointed (whether by a liberal God or their mere membership in the New World Order elite) to tell the rest of the world how to live, and to punish those who disobey their edicts as severely as possible!!

[EdReform]

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues"

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping! Maybe this'll stave it off while good people think up other ways and means to put this destructive WOD* in the grave.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this ping list.

The radical homosexuals (what percentage are radical, anyway? And how many speak out against their radical brethren?) DO NOT WANT this issue to come before the people. Note what just happened in Kansas. Enough legislators waffled, became traitors to their constituents, and voted to prevent the PEOPLE from being given a chance to vote on "same sex marriage".

*Weapon of Mass Destruction - destroying hearts and minds wholesale.

Or, in Massachusetts, Weapon of Mass(achusetts) Destruction.

[expatpat]

I'm really pleased to see someone doing this, tho' the Demo'rat motive is to avoid being stuck on the wrong side of this issue. The Legislatures or the Executives need to get enough bells to tell the SJCs that they can shove their 'decisions' that counter the intent of the Constitution, because said decisions will be ignored since they infringe on the People's rights.

[EdReform]

Like all "human rigtsers", these birds believe that they are annointed (whether by a liberal God or their mere membership in the New World Order elite) to tell the rest of the world how to live, and to punish those who disobey their edicts as severely as possible!!

What law enforcement agencies do these activist judges actually control? Let's suppose that the Governor orders the State Police (and that county and local officials do likewise with their agencies) to ignore any orders from these activist judges to arrest persons who decide to disobey the judicial edicts. Just what exactly could the judges do about it?