Saturday, June 17, 2006


The Demolition of Democracy[1]

The emperor marched in the procession under the beautiful canopy, and all who saw him in the street and out of the windows exclaimed: “Indeed, the emperor’s new suit is incomparable! What a long train he has! How well it fits him!” Nobody wished to let others know he saw nothing, for then he would have been unfit for his office or too stupid. Never emperor’s clothes were more admired.[2]

Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts does not exist. Chapter 207, the Massachusetts “marriage” statute, actually prohibits same-sex marriages. The certificates that have been and are being handed to same-sex couples allegedly pursuant to that statute are void and are not worth the paper they are printed on. In the meantime while this falsehood continues on a daily basis to be forced upon the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (and the rest of the world), the Massachusetts Constitution has been violated not by one branch of Government, but by all three.[3]

Although many and diverse people are aware[4] that same sex marriage does not legally exist in Massachusetts, the national and local media is unwilling to expose the lack of legal authority for the “marriages;” they simply would rather report the falsehood.[5] The family law experts are not willing to acknowledge the deficiency; nor is the Governor of Massachusetts (whose only constitutional duty is to execute the laws of Massachusetts) willing to admit it because doing so might adversely impact his future run for President of the United States.

Too many citizens believe that because the Goodridge[6] decision does not affect me and my family personally, it is too vague and abstract to worry about. But as a citizen of a free country established on the principle of free speech, it is each citizen’s independent obligation to educate oneself, engage in the public debate over the future stability of a foundational building block of our society, marriage, and to not tolerate the demolition of our democracy.

Once one educates[7] oneself about exactly what happened in Massachusetts on May 17, 2002, the truth becomes transparently obvious and glaring questions linger. Why does the rest of the world believe same-sex “marriage” legally exists? Who is to blame for this global fraud? What are other States to do when the proponents attempt to bring same-sex “marriage” to those States through the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution? How can the falsehood be prevented from being used as precedent and infecting other State’s laws? This article answers those questions.[8]


1   McDuffy v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Education, 415 Mass. 545, 607 (1993) (John Adams “offered that "there is no good government but what is republican." Thoughts on Government, in 4 Works of John Adams 194 (C.F. Adams ed. 1851). He described the requirements of a Constitution for a republican government. He prescribed a tripartite system of government in which the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are independent of one another . . .”); The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage in Canada: Law and Policy Considerations Jane Adolphe * 18 BYU Journal of Public Law 480 (2003) (“In sum, to accept the Halpern redefinition of marriage is to accept a fate articulated by lawyer and scholar Iain Benson: “Citizens of Canada no longer live in a democratic society. The illusion of democracy continues, but the reality is that major decisions regarding fundamental matters are no longer made by elected officials.” Indeed, authentic democracy is possible only in a State, which respects the rule of law founded on a true conception of the human person and his and her human dignity, which is integrally tied to the natural family based on marriage. When objective truth does not guide and direct government, Pope John Paul II aptly points out, “then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.”)”).

2   The Emperor’s New Suit, by Hans Christian Andersen (1837) See

3   The first constitutional violation was committed by the legislature in 2002 and Governor Jane Swift (R). The remainder of this article focuses on how the SJC and the current governor (Mitt Romney) have independently, collaboratively, and intentionally disregarded the will of the people.

4    See e-mail sent to the Boston Globe -- See also

5   find a citation

6   Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003)

7   In a recent, but blatant slap in the face of the people, legislature, and governor of Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court recently said: “For its effective functioning, democracy requires an educated citizenry.” Hancock v. Commissioner of Education, SJC-09267, February 15, 2005.

8   Because, as the reader will learn, the Supreme Judicial Court’s declaration of unconstitutionality of the marriage statutes is of no legal significance, there is no need to delve deeply into the obvious judicial activism that the Court employed to justify finding that there is no rational basis in the statute for limiting marriage to one man and one woman. See Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003). There was obviously a debatable rational basis, which should have prevented the Supreme Judicial Court from declaring the statute “unconstitutional” and attempting to substitute its own judgment for that of the people. See Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003) (Cordy, J., dissenting) (“It is difficult to imagine a State purpose more important and legitimate than ensuring, promoting, and supporting an optimal social structure within which to bear and raise children. At the very least, the marriage statute continues to serve this important State purpose.”); Mass. Comm'n Against Discrimination v. Colangelo, 344 Mass. 387(1962) ("It is only when a legislative finding cannot be supported upon any rational basis of fact that reasonably can be conceived to sustain it that a court is empowered to strike it down. ... If the question is fairly debatable, courts cannot substitute their judgment for that of the Legislature."); Druzik v. Bd. of Health of Haverhill, 324 Mass. 129 (1949) (“All rational presumptions are made in favor of the validity of every legislative enactment. Enforcement is to be refused only when it is in manifest excess of legislative power. It is only when a legislative finding cannot be supported upon any rational basis of fact that reasonably can be conceived to sustain it that a court is empowered.”).