Hyper-Hypocrisy in Print

Hyper-Hypocrisy in Print
Polyxane Cobb founder of a disability advocacy organization laments anti homosexual bias. ("Same-sex marriage debate should be left to the law," Cambridge Chronicle, February 8, 2007, page 10) I've wondered why the Cambridge Chronicle did not publish my letters [e.g., Dec. 8, 2006 below] and essay saying much of the same things she says.
Cobb omits a major fact i.e., the Mass Constitution clearly states that matters regarding marriage are to left to the Governor and to the legislature. That means that the courts do not have "subject matter jurisdiction" as the lawyers call it. One Mass statute prevents some persons with disabilities from marrying. That too is ignored by the homosexual lobby (which pleads for equal marriage for all), as well as Cobb, an alleged advocate for legal rights of persons with disabilities.
Cobb errs when she says, "the SJC doesn't pick the cases that are brought before them (sic)." Au contraire. The SJC and the US Supreme Court have no obligation to hear any case. They pick and chose among the many submitted.
Saying the "job of the Supreme Judicial Court is to rule on the constitutionality of laws in Massachusetts," is not the same as their oath to uphold the Mass Constitution. In the Goodridge case they failed to do that by hearing the case. She laments selective support for the court, while doing the same. She supports Goodridge but opposes the declaration that the legislature has a duty to permit a vote on a citizen petition initiative. That is hyper-hypocrisy usually found only in politicians.
Oh, Cobb is a politician -- the chair of a Democratic party ward. Politics as usual, saying one thing and doing another.

Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM

[Sent Dec. 8, 2006]
Three letters indicate polluted public discourse regarding same sex marriage. (Darren Brannon, "Romney attacks hateful," Rachel Culley, "Marriage should not be put up to a vote," and Margaret Barusch, "Leave my friends alone," Cambridge Chronicle, December 7, 2006, page 13) The MA Constitution states clearly that matters regarding marriage are to be left to the Governor and to the legislature.
The Marshal Court ignored that part of the Constitution regarding jurisdiction. Romney's suit asks the court, not for judicial activism as Brannon calls it, but for a writ to force the legislature to fulfill its constitutional duty. The refusal of two Senate presidents (first Birmingham then Travaligni) to allow a vote are violations of the Constitution as well.
A Writ of Mandamus is an old action, not a new legal path. Culley says, "the Legislature dismissed [an] effort to put gay marriage on a statewide ballot." The Constitution says the convention "shall" vote on a citizen petition. It does not say "may." The legislature did not vote on the merits of same sex marriage or even on whether to place the citizen petition for a ballot question on the ballot. That is the issue.
It is a violation of the Due Process rights of 170,000 citizens. A vote to recess is not a vote on the merits. It is a stalling tactic by spineless politicians. Culley and Barusch use the term "right" referring to marriage. There is no right to marry. Barusch sees a conspiracy of right wingers. Many supporters of same sex marriage oppose the unconstitutional tactics.
The same sex petition is one of several that are stalled. Barusch thinks that nonfeasance by elected officials is not a pressing matter. Corruption is the most pressing matter. Ignoring corruption of the courts and the legislature is an outrage. Culley and Barusch see "no harm done" by this contempt for law. That is a shortsighted.
Until same sex marriage is approved by the voters or their representatives the court decision will remain vulnerable. Rights of black Americans were enforced only after the Civil Rights Act became law enacted by the U.S. Congress. Shortcuts for one group can as easily be used by other groups for offensive laws that can destroy all freedoms not only the freedom to marry.

* * * * *

The Massachusetts state constitution says that matters of marriage are to be left to the Governor and to the legislature. The state supreme judicial court ignored that constitutional provision. All of the petitioners for a citizen initiative for a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage had their rights to due process violated. I hear silence from the homosexual lobby about this rights violation.
The Senate Presidents (Birmingham and Traviligni) had a constitutional duty to allow a vote at the state constitutional convention on the previous petition for an amendment to be placed before the voters. But this constitutional violation is also ignored by the homosexual lobby.
These legal zealots prefer selective enforcement of the laws. If they like the law they support it. If not they ignore it. This is troublesome but accepted as normal among the renegade state of Massachusetts.
Now the homosexual lobby intimidates the signers of the petition by calling them to ask if their signature was stolen. This is a violation of the state Civil Rights statute, Chapter 265 Sec. 37 of the Mass General Laws. It is a crime. It prohibits intimidating a person from the free exercise of a constitutionally protected right. But again laws are to be enforced only with the approval of the homosexual elites that run the Mass state government.

-- Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA