Mass. Constitutional Convention (Feb.2004)

Constitutional Convention (Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2004)

«Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 · Next Page»

Rep. Loscocco said this is getting national attention. This in no way is viewed as an antigay or homophobic piece of legislation. Why is that? 38 states have addressed this issue. Shame on us for not addressing this issue years ago. The SJC decision decided this on a rational basis test – that is the lowest standard out there, for those of you who are not lawyers. I admire the SJC. If they had ruled that this is a fundamental right, and there was a compelling state interest, they could have decided this on that basis. It did not. Shame on the SJC. Four activist judges made the decision. Regardless of the position on gay marriage, there should be outrage on their specious legal reasoning. They stifled debate by the people and the legislators. That’s contrary to our representative form of government. If left unchecked, what rights will the court attempt to usurp tomorrow? The SJC is out of order in deciding this issue in the way they did. They could’ve done this as a civil rights case – a strict scrutiny case. This issue remains in the purview of the Legislature, where it belongs.

«Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 · Next Page»


Home > Local News > Constitutional Convention Transcripts
Pictures and Photos Local News Constitutional Convention Transcripts Username Password	Constitutional Convention (Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2004) «Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 · Next Page» Rep. Loscocco said this is getting national attention. This in no way is viewed as an antigay or homophobic piece of legislation. Why is that? 38 states have addressed this issue. Shame on us for not addressing this issue years ago. The SJC decision decided this on a rational basis test – that is the lowest standard out there, for those of you who are not lawyers. I admire the SJC. If they had ruled that this is a fundamental right, and there was a compelling state interest, they could have decided this on that basis. It did not. Shame on the SJC. Four activist judges made the decision. Regardless of the position on gay marriage, there should be outrage on their specious legal reasoning. They stifled debate by the people and the legislators. That’s contrary to our representative form of government. If left unchecked, what rights will the court attempt to usurp tomorrow? The SJC is out of order in deciding this issue in the way they did. They could’ve done this as a civil rights case – a strict scrutiny case. This issue remains in the purview of the Legislature, where it belongs. «Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 · Next Page»