Monday, February 04, 2008

Mike Huckabee on Super Duper Tuesday & Why Same-Sex "Marriage" is ILLEGAL in MA

Gregg Jackson of Townhall.com wrote an excellent article today concerning why he (and the rest of us should) is voting for Mike Huckabee tomorrow and how the other Republican contenders just do not have what it takes to lead this country.

Click HERE to read article.
Mr. Jackson also highlights why same-sex "marriage" is NOT legal in Massachusetts and how former Gov. "I am following the law" Romney botched your right to vote on marriage.
I only have one question:
Why is there talk of a Senate Bill, No. 918, that would protect Massachusetts families through equal access to civil marriage when same-sex "marriage" is already "legal" in MA?
Read full contents of bill by clicking HERE. Go to "Officially legalize same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts" under BILLS IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

12 Comments:

Anonymous KatieKat said...

Hmmm... I'm very interested in reading both the article and the text of the bill, but neither of your links seems to be working. The second one takes me to the massresistance site, but the link to the actual bill is no good.
Could you maybe provide me with another link(s) so that I can understand your position?
Thanks. :)

10:07 AM, February 05, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was going through your links Scia (they all seem to work for me) and noticed S102, a bill to require all girls to receive a vaccination for HPV. I don’t want the government forcing that drug into anyone’s veins, but what’s the big deal about it? I mean if I had a daughter she’d get in line for that vaccination even if it was costing me a years salary. Anyone who is not going to get their daughter that vaccination for fear that it seems like “approval” for sex needs to ask themselves one question; if your daughter gets raped and then gets cancer because of HPV, how are you going to look in her eyes and say it was for her own protection?

On another note a Dr. John Diggs wrote “False security is worse than truthful knowledge,” that caught my eye and reminded me of something you said Scia “I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is.” it just makes me laugh and laugh and laugh, because I believe Christianity is that false sense of security.

Ken Weaver

P.S. Anyone but Huckabee!!

8:41 PM, February 05, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

Sorry you are having trouble with the links. Sometimes using another computer will solve the problem.

Let me know how it works out. I can provide the direct URL to the links if you need them.

Good to hear from you. Have you been busy??

Scia

2:35 PM, February 06, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You really bring up a great point regarding the HPV vaccination. I would feel really bad if my daughter got HPV as a result of getting raped (that was difficult to type...sorry) and I did not have her receive the vaccination.

At the end of the day, you know your children (daughters) are safe from cancer if you agree with the vaccination, but (and a really big BUTT) we all need to continue with protecting our children and teaching them to wait until marriage to engage in sexual intercourse, not only to be safe but to please our Lord Jesus Christ.

Great point Ken!!

Can you answer my question of:

Why is there talk of a Senate Bill, No. 918, that would protect Massachusetts families through equal access to civil marriage when same-sex "marriage" is already "legal" in MA?

2:44 PM, February 06, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“…but to please our Lord Jesus Christ.”

I think I’ll just stick to the safe part okay?

“Why is there talk of a Senate Bill, No. 918, that would protect Massachusetts families through equal access to civil marriage when same-sex "marriage" is already "legal" in MA?”

I have no clue. Like you said, I thought it was legal, it makes no sense to legalize what is already legal does it? The same goes both ways though; in AZ they tried to pass a constitutional amendment to make same sex marriage illegal when it already is. Seemed silly to me; don’t we have enough pages in our law books already? Come on people trees are getting scarce!

Ken Weaver

8:53 PM, February 06, 2008  
Anonymous KatieKat said...

Hi Scia -
Yes, I have been a busy, busy girl! My fiance and I just bought a house, and moving 40+ miles away from my hometown took a lot out of me. Having fibormyalgia sucks, let me tell you.
Anyway, on to your question:
"Why is there talk of a Senate Bill, No. 918, that would protect Massachusetts families through equal access to civil marriage when same-sex "marriage" is already "legal" in MA?"
I imagine that it is because while the Massachusetts Constitution does not expressly prohibit gay marriage, there is no law on the books that says it MUST be legal. Basically, gay marriage is allowed in MA because there is not law saying it cannot happen. However, there is not law saying that it CAN, either. So, a law put into place that expressly ALLOWS gay marriage, would protect those that already are, as well as ensuring that gay couples can marry in the future. Which (of course), in my opinion, is a good thing.

10:18 AM, February 07, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"in AZ they tried to pass a constitutional amendment to make same sex marriage illegal when it already is..."

AZ already has laws in the books banning Same-Sex "Marriages" but the current amendment of 2008 "will just put current state law in the Constitution so that it withstands any future legal or legislative challenges."

Go to

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0212gay-marriage0212.html

to read full story.

1:25 PM, February 15, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

It is good to hear from you again. I hope you are doing O.K. with your move. Where do you live again?

You said:

"...gay marriage is allowed in MA because there is not law saying it cannot happen."

Oh, than Mass. General Law Chapter 207 which explains that the term "marriage" is rendered to that of a husband (man) and a wife (woman) is obsolete?? Are you translating this law to mean "there is no law saying it (gay "marriage") cannot happen?? There is NO law saying it CAN happen, even to this very day. Go to mass.gov to look this marriage LAW up for yourself.

Bottom line: the SJC’s act of reformulating the common law meaning of marriage did not and could not change the meaning of the term “marriage” contained within the marriage statute of Chapter 207. As a result of this there is legislation up for consideration that would legalize homosexual "marriage" in statute.

As explained at robertpaine.blogspot.com (MA attorney):

In interpreting the legislative intent behind the marriage statute, the Goodridge Court adhered to these principles of jurisprudence regarding the construction of the meaning of Chapter 207.[50] Indeed, the Goodridge opinion accurately gleaned the legislative intent behind the enactment of the marriage statute. Very clearly the Court acknowledged that “the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry.” The Court essentially decided that the current and traditional statutory “meaning of ‘marriage’ is ‘[t]he legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife,’ Black's Law Dictionary 986 (7th ed. 1999).”[51] The court had a duty not to negate the actual legislative intent and the Goodridge Court complied with that duty (but only regarding the construction of the statute not the Constitution, as discussed below).[52] The Court found that the marriage statute does not authorize same-sex marriage stating: “We conclude . . . that G. L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.”

After coming to this conclusion, the Court did not attempt to change the statute.[53] Indeed, the Court could not have done so because it does not possess that authority from the Constitution.[54] The Massachusetts Constitution explicitly prohibits the judiciary from performing a legislative function.[55] The SJC does not possess the authority to change the plain meaning of a statute’s language.[56] The SJC repeatedly has acknowledged it has “no right to read into [a] . . . statute 'a provision [extending a definition] which the Legislature did not see fit to put there."[57] Similarly, the Court has stated it will not “add words to a statute that the Legislature did not put there . . ."[58] It is the Legislature alone whose legal prerogative it is to adjust the statutes to changed conditions.[59] These principals recognize and honor our system of separation of powers.[60] .

Abiding by their constitutionally limited powers, the four justices declared that they would “reformulate the common law meaning of marriage” in Massachusetts.[61] That action, however brazen, was legally insignificant in terms of its effect on the power granted pursuant to the statute. The act of reformulating the common law meaning did not and could not change the meaning of the term “marriage” contained within the statute.[62] The common law is not the highest but the lowest form of law and, therefore, is subordinate to legislation enacted by the representatives of the people.[63]. Clearly, then, the SJC could not enlarge the statutory language in the marriage laws to include situations never contemplated by and indeed, actions considered abhorrent behavior by the original drafters of the legislation merely by changing the “common law.”[64] Their reformulation of the definition of “marriage” under the common law could not and did not change the statute.[65] The SJC acknowledged this limitation by clearly and carefully stating that they were simply doing what they had been asked to do; which was to declare the statute unconstitutional.[66]

8:40 PM, February 16, 2008  
Anonymous KatieKat said...

"Oh, than Mass. General Law Chapter 207 which explains that the term "marriage" is rendered to that of a husband (man) and a wife (woman) is obsolete?? "

No, it's not 'obsolete'. However, that law is ambiguous. The word 'only' is never used. Therefore, while the union of a man and woman as husband and wife can be called 'marriage', it doesn not specifically state that no other unions will be recognized. So, there is no law in Massachusetts that states that two people of the same sex cannot be married.

12:43 PM, February 19, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

A "husband" and a "wife" does focus on "only". There is nothing ambiguous about these terms.

8:42 PM, February 22, 2008  
Anonymous KatieKat said...

The law simply states that the term 'marriage' is rendered to that of a husband and wife. It does not say 'only', and it does not state that a union between two people of the same-sex can't be called a 'marriage'. That, in and of itself, is what makes it ambiguous.

7:34 AM, February 25, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

Neither do our marriage laws say a union between a man and his pet hampster of the same-sex can't be called a 'marriage'.

2:43 PM, March 17, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com