*GAY MARRIAGE MANDATE: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled 4 to 3 on November 18 that the Massachusetts state legislature must legalize homosexual marriage, ruled on February 3, again 4 to 3, that the Massachusetts legislature could not satisfy this mandate by creating gay marriages and calling them "civil unions." Gay marriages, said the court, must be made exactly equal to real marriages right down to the use of the word "marriage." America will now see how the state that first rebelled against the British Parliament for usurping its legislative authority, will respond to four unelected judges' usurpation of its legislative authority.
*MAY DAY: Massachusetts has scheduled a constitutional convention for February 11. At this convention, an amendment may be crafted to constitutionally define marriage in the state as solely between a man and a woman. But under the procedures followed in the state, that amendment could not be ratified until at least late 2006. In the meantime, under the Supreme Judicial Court's mandate-which gave the state legislature only 180 days to act-homosexual marriages must start taking place in Massachusetts by the middle of May. If they do, that will mean it took less than one year for Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring same-sex sodomy a constitutional right, to beget legalized gay marriages.
*SCALIA TOLD US SO: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia predicted that this would happen in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence, he just didn't predict it would happen so soon.
*WHAT'S NEXT? Far from those distant days of last year, when Republican Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania was trashed for suggesting the Lawrence case would lead to the legalization of even more bizarre activities, the establishment media are now full of stories speculating on what comes next.
Associated Press religion writer Richard Ostling wrote January 26: "Why not legitimize threesomes and foursomes? What about bisexuals, who are attracted to both genders? And why not abolish marriage altogether? Such eyebrow-raisers are posed by Marvin Ellison, the ethics professor at the United Church of Christ's Bangor (Maine) Theological Seminary, in Same-Sex Marriage?: A Christian Ethical Analysis, published by the United Church's Pilgrim Press."
*CAMPAIGN ISSUE: President Bush issued a restrained but resolute statement in response to the action of the Massachusetts court. The President's rhetorical restraint, however, did not damper the belief among conservatives who follow the issue in Washington, D.C., that the White House is planning to use the gay-marriage issue decisively in the coming campaign, specifically by backing a Federal Marriage Amendment proposed by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R.-Colo.).
"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," said Bush. "If activist judges insist on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
*KERRY CORNERED: Ironically, the Massachusetts court may have cornered Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential frontrunner, by forcing him to confront the gay marriage issue during his campaign. Kerry may even be forced to vote up or down-or conspicuously skip a vote-on a Federal Marriage Amendment in the months leading up to the November election.
Kerry claims he is against gay marriage. But he voted against the federal Defense of Marriage Act (see page 3) in the Senate, and lauded the Massachusetts court's original opinion in November. President Bush's campaign, many conservatives believe, can use this issue to crush Kerry among socially conservative Democrats in the upper Midwest, and finish any chance Kerry might have of winning any Southern state. That alone would give Bush a lock on the Electoral College.
*SPECIALLY INTERESTED: Kerry has made laughable claims to "outsider status" on the stump. But the Associated Press reports that he "intervened in the Senate to keep open a loophole that had allowed a major insurer to divert millions of federal dollars from the nation's most expensive construction project (Boston's 'Big Dig'), then received tens of thousand of dollars in donations from the company during the next two years, documents show."
"'The idea that Kerry has not helped or benefited from a specific special interest, which he has said, is utterly absurd,' said Charles Lewis, head of the Center for Public Integrity. The documents obtained by AP detail Kerry's effort as a member of the Senate Commerce Committee to persuade committee chairman John McCain (R.-Ariz.) to drop legislation that would have stripped $150 million from the Big Dig project and ended the insurance funding loophole. The Big Dig project has become a symbol of government contracting gone awry, known for its huge cost overruns that now total several billion dollars, and its admissions of mismanagement."
*LIEBERMAN LEAVES: The "moderate" in the Democratic presidential race, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D.-Conn.), dropped out on February 3 after a pathetic showing in the primaries that day. Lieberman took a dismal 11% in Delaware, where he had focused his final efforts. "I pledge to support whoever the Democratic nominee may be to deny George Bush a second term," Lieberman said, despite his kinship with Bush-and alienation from fellow Democrats-on crucial national security issues.
*CLARK'S LAST STAND: Retired Gen. Wesley Clark may have barely won the Oklahoma primary, but his campaign is over, according to one of his key backers. New York State Senate Minority Leader David Paterson (D.-Manhattan) said, "I think the general is about to meet Sitting Bull," a reference to Custer's last stand at Little Big Horn in 1876. "John Kerry, as I see it, is the clear candidate," Paterson told WROW-AM radio in Albany.
*WHERE IT HURTS: Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia has introduced legislation that would cut congressional pay in years when Congress fails to balance the federal budget. Members would take a pay cut of 5% in the first year of deficit spending, and up to 10% in subsequent years. "It's past time for us to cut spending in Washington," said Miller. "What better way to let our constituents know we are serious about controlling spending than by tying it to our own pay?" Republican Rep. Nathan Deal of Georgia is sponsoring the House version of the bill.
