Go to: => TOP Page; What's New? Page; ROAD MAP; Shopping Mall; Emmaus Ministries Page; Search Page
[COMMENT: Gregg Jackson is an extraordinarily perceptive commentator. He has done his homework on the California situation. The lawbreaker is not the CA Supreme Court, it is CA Governor Schwarzenegger, who has committed a felony crime by enforcing a law (rewriting marriage certificates) with neither constitutional nor statutory authority.
We MUST force a recall of Governor Schwarzenegger.
|Pundit Review 5-18-08|
|Here is my letter to the
editor submitted in response to their inaccurate and misleading headline
on the front page yesterday, “Massachusetts lives happily with same-sex
Your above the fold headline in today’s LA Times, “Massachusetts lives happily with same-sex marriage law,” by Elizabeth Mehren is totally inaccurate and misleading, and it is vital that you clarify this error for your readers.
The truth is that “same sex marriage” is not legal in Massachusetts which is why only about a month ago legislation was introduced to amend the current Massachusetts marriage statute (chapter 207) to legalize “same sex marriage.” (H1710 and S918) which were both defeated. This alone disproves your inaccurate headline!
Under the Massachusetts’ Constitution, the oldest functioning constitution in the world authored by John Adams, which served as the model for our Federal Constitution:
“[T]he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.” (PART THE FIRST, Article X.)
And “the people” via their elected representatives never “consented”
to “same sex marriage.” The current marriage statute was never amended
or suspended and to this day doesn’t include a provision for “same sex
“All causes of marriage…shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.” (PART THE SECOND, Ch. III, Article V.)
Although many “conservative” lawyers and pundits have claimed that the “activist MSJC Court” legalized “same sex marriage,” it was the acting governor Mitt Romney, a “conservative” Republican who illegally ordered the Department of Public Health to change the marriage certificates from “husband” and “wife” to “partner A” and “partner B” and ordered Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to solemnize and perform same sex marriage ceremonies or resign (which one did). Romney did this without an accompanying legal statute and in doing so violated his sworn oath to uphold and enforce the Constitution and the laws and statutes of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
That being said, while it was Romney, not the court, who was solely responsible for installing “same sex marriage,” the certificates that Romney issued (over 150 of them he personally issued) are not worth the paper they are written on because they lack an accompanying enabling statute that recognizes “same sex marriage” and are therefore, according to the Massachusetts Constitution, null and void.
The truth is that according to the highest law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Constitution, “same sex marriage” is not “legal.”
Nor is “same sex marriage” “legal” in California. The citizens in California approved a voter initiative to define marriage as between one man and one woman in 2000. The judiciary lacks the requisite constitutional authority to overturn any statute passed by the voters. Only the voters themselves can reverse a statute they themselves voted in. While the court is free to interpret the constitution of California and issue opinions, they are not authorized to “strike down” any specific statutes. It is vital that you acknowledge that “same sex marriage” is not legal in California either or prove that it is. Neither the people nor their elected representatives voted to amend or suspend the current marriage statute that doesn’t allow for “same sex marriage.” Until they do, it remains illegal.
You have an solemn obligation to acknowledge these facts and run a retraction for your readers. Anything less is journalistic and legal malpractice.
Looking forward to seeing if you choose to run this letter.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *