Do you remember the Star Trek movie subtitled The Wrath of Khan? Khan was a genetically bred superior human, stronger and smarter than average earthlings like Captain Kirk and his crew. There's that moment at the end of the movie during the inevitable battle scene when somehow Kirk and the Enterprise sneak up and deal a devastating blow to Khan, his ship and crew. Khan is dying, his crew is gone and Lt. Uhura sends the "prepare to be boarded" message. Rather than surrender to the inferior humans, Khan triggers a doomsday device designed to destroy both ships and then chillingly utters his big lines: "To the last I grapple with thee. From hell's heart, I stab at thee. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee."
Good stuff.
Of course Khan only succeeds in blowing up what's left of his ship and himself, as the Enterprise suddenly speeds out of harm's way.
I'd always thought Khan's last lines, uttered in total defeat, were the most arrogant statements I'd ever heard.
Until this week.
 |
The scene is Massachusetts, and the actors are the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), that state's highest court. On July 10, the SJC once again spoke on the subject of same-sex marriage. You'll remember that court from its deeply divided 4-3 decision in 2003's Goodridge case that found same-sex marriage hidden in that state's constitution. Pro-family forces in Massachusetts, who thought that perhaps the people, rather than four justices, should decide what definition of marriage should prevail in their state, raised more signatures (170,000) on petitions for a ballot initiative than any other initiative in state history. Which naturally meant that gay activists had to file suit to somehow short-circuit the process.
The good news is that this week the SJC rejected that challenge to the ballot initiative, allowing it to proceed to the Legislature, which must muster a mere 50 votes in its favor in two separate years before it can go to the voters as early as 2008. In fact, the technical legal challenge mustered by the amendment's opponents was so weak that the SJC's vote was a unanimous 7-0, including, ironically, all four of the uberintellectual liberal justices who just knew that Massachusetts would be better off with same-sex marriage and legislated that from the bench in Goodridge.
That's gotta hurt.
Wait, I'm coming to the display of arrogance I promised you. (As if Goodridge wasn't arrogant enough!)
Two of the four liberal justices, Greaney and Ireland, attached a "concurring" opinion to this week's decision in favor of the constitutional amendment process. Concurring opinions usually explain how a judge agrees with the main decision, but might have reached it for different or additional reasons.
Justices Greaney and Ireland, however, used their concurrence to spell out how the ballot initiative could still be overturned by their court after the voters approve it!
Yes, you read that correctly. Bloody, but defiant, these guys aren't finished yet. All they need is for the other two liberal Goodridge justices to join them when the time comes.
Although they dressed their doomsday language in legalese -- which I will happily and helpfully translate for you -- the following quotes from that concurring opinion "spit their last breath" at the voters of Massachusetts:
"The proposed initiative cannot be said to further a proper legislative objective (as was categorically decided by the Goodridge court, there is none)."
Translation: Traditional marriage is outlawed in this state, and there's nothing the legislature or the people can do about it.
"Put more directly, the Goodridge decision may be irreversible because of its holding that no rational basis exists, or can be advanced, to support the definition of marriage proposed by the initiative…"
Translation: We've already proven that we are the ultimate Legislature in Massachusetts. Now we're saying that our pronouncements supersede the state constitution.
"If the initiative is approved by the Legislature and ultimately adopted, there will be time enough, if an appropriate lawsuit is brought, for this court to resolve the question whether our Constitution can be home to provisions that are apparently mutually inconsistent and irreconcilable."
Translation: Bring us your voter-approved constitutional amendment and we'll overturn it. Don't worry, we'll find a way.
"A positive vote on the proposed initiative may be vulnerable on grounds of federal constitutional law as well."
Translation: Even if we can't legitimately toss out the amendment based on our state constitution, we'll use the U.S. Constitution instead.
"Whether the substantive due process or equal protection guarantees of the Federal Constitution permit an amendment to a State Constitution that is motivated by animus, or is discriminatory on its face without a sufficiently important reason, are, at this point in time, unlitigated questions of law."
Translation: We're perfectly happy to use the federal Constitution to strike down any state constitutional amendment that gets in the way of the homosexual agenda in this state.
Khan's got nothing on these two guys.
Assuming that Massachusetts voters successfully overcome the obstruction by their own Legislature, which this week recessed (translation: bailed) rather than consider and vote on the ballot measure, and the measure is ultimately approved by the electorate, the $64,000 question becomes: Will these two arrogant justices be joined by their other two liberal allies in throwing out the marriage amendment after the voters approve it?
Here's hoping that Scotty can fix those warp engines in time.
TAKE ACTION:
The U.S. House of Representatives will vote on the federal Marriage Protection Amendment on Tuesday. Your representative needs to hear from you. You may contact him or her through the CitizenLink Action Center.
If you are a CitizenLink Daily Update subscriber, click on the blue "Marriage Protection Amendment" button in the e-mail to be automatically logged in to our Action Center. Otherwise, click on this link.
(Paid for by Focus on the Family Action.)
