What the article doesn't mention is that anti-gay zealots are already trying to muster the 55k signatures needed to put a Prop-8-like measure on the ballot.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
huh. I thought Maine got sunk by the Spanish a long time ago.
"...the proviso that no religious institution can be legally compelled to sanctify one."
That had to be put in specificly to prevent the state and US supreme courts from nullifying the whole law based upon a FirstAmendment challenge by a religious organization.
Not saying that such a challenge couldn't still be made; just that that either of the supreme courts would make themselves look both absurd and legally capricious trying to justify any ruling in favor of the challengers. And when all is said and done, the only weapons that any supreme court possesses to enforce its decisions are dignity and gravitas.
posted
aspectre: Actually, the proviso is unnecessary because the first amendment implies it.
However, it's still important to spell it out to subvert the lies about priests being forced to marry gay couples if the thing passes.
I've long thought that proposed pro-SSM laws should carry that same clause so that the anti-SSM people have no ability to claim victimhood and have to show their true colours if and when they continue to oppose equal rights.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The newest counterchallenge is being made through an attempt at a people's veto. There's a bit of irony inherent in that.
The same people that were complaining about judicial rulings and "legislating from the bench" were claiming that they were only upset about the laws not going through the right process. Now that the laws are going through the "right process" they want to create a new process.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The same people that were complaining about judicial rulings and "legislating from the bench" were claiming that they were only upset about the laws not going through the right process.
To be fair, I haven't heard many people say the only reason they were upset was because the laws didn't go through the right process.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"...the proviso is unnecessary because the first amendment implies it."
The problem is that various laws have been tossed out in their entirety based solely upon a failure to have such exceptions made to comply with state and US constitutions explicitly included within their texts.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
