Same-Sex Marriage In Massachusetts, Chapter 17
Well, I don't know if it's 17, but it sure seems like it. Dean Barnett summarizes today's development, in which Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court ruled on the lawsuit brought by Mitt Romney and others. In the action Romney et al. asked the Court to decide whether or not the state's legislators actually had to vote on an initiative petition for a constitutional amendment. Here's how the lawsuit started:
The initial steps in amending the Massachusetts State Constitution are simple enough: If an adequate number of citizens signs an initiative petition suggesting a change in the Constitution, the state’s legislators must hold a joint session and vote “yea” or “nay” on the proposed amendment. A yea vote sends the measure to the people in the form of a referendum question. A nay vote kills it.
The Definition of Marriage Amendment didn’t get a “yea or nay” vote, even though the petition had more than enough signatures. When Governor Mitt Romney called the legislators to session to vote on the Amendment, they promptly voted to disband by a 109-87 margin. They did not consider the proposed amendment as they were constitutionally required to.
Read Dean's post to learn what the Court did and what will happen next. What does this mean in the context of this blog's focus? Dean thinks "Mitt Romney wins this round."
[tags] Dean Barnett, Mitt Romney, same-sex marriage, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Definition of Marriage Amendment, Massachusetts State Constitution [/tags]
Posted in Issues, Political Strategy | Comment on this post » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post