The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled it constitutional for citizens to vote on an amendment which would overturn the ruling allowing gay marriage. What I have trouble with is the basis of the lawsuit opposing the right to vote on the amendment. Read this paragraph from the AP Article carefully with emphasis mine:

The ruling came on a lawsuit brought by gay-rights supporters who argued that Attorney General Tom Reilly was wrong to certify the question because the state's constitution bars any citizen-initiated amendment that seeks to reverse a judicial ruling.

I'm not making a statement on the issue at hand and I'm not making a legal judgment, but is there something wrong with this rationale? If a judge makes a ruling, which may overturn a legislative act, then no one should have the right to vote on overturning the judges later on--ever?! Why don't we just get rid of governors and legislators and even the voters?

It takes the mind of a liberal to come up with such a twisted scheme for governing. This time the justices ruled on the law rather than their preferences. But, if it were not for activist judges in most cases, the left wouldn't have much say so in government.

Posted at 02:10 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.