Will Mass. remove the judges? The best way to protect marriage in Massachusetts is not to amend a constitution that does not authorize same-sex "marriage," but to remove the judges who subvert the constitution.

Massachusetts residents have organized a new drive under the banner of the "Article 8 Alliance" to undo the state Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) November 2003 ruling for homosexual "marriage." The new Article 8 Alliance strategy would dust off a centuries-old "Article of Address" provision in the state constitution to remove the judges.

The SJC ruling, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, held that the state law limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman does not meet the court's "rational basis test" for allowing the law to stand. The SJC acknowledged that the state statutes, past court precedents and common law tradition uphold the common sense definition of marriage as consisting of a man and a woman. "The only reasonable explanation is that the legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry," Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall conceded in the court decision. "We have recognized the long-standing statutory understanding, derived from the common law, that 'marriage' means the lawful union of a man and a woman." Nevertheless, the court upended three centuries of state precedent by writing the Goodridge decision.

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and the local Catholic Church dioceses have committed to remedying the decision by pursuing an amendment to the state constitution that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. But the Massachusetts method of amending the state constitution is even slower than the federal one. A state constitutional amendment must be passed twice by the combined legislature meeting as a constitutional convention, the second vote occurring after the next election. Even after the amendment passes the second vote, voters at the ballot box must then approve it. In other words, the earliest a constitutional amendment could take effect would be November 2006. Yet the SJC decision is slated to go into effect on May 17 of this year.

Brian Camenker, organizer of the Article 8 Alliance, sees the constitutional amendment route as not only impractical, but also flawed, since it addresses only the effects of the problem rather than the problem itself. "We cannot amend the constitution every time a rogue court gets into power," Camenker said to Article 8 Alliance supporters in New Bedford, Massachusetts on March 3. "The problem is not that the constitution is faulty, the problem is with us, because we have allowed government to get out of control."

"Article of Address" Method

Camenker is seeking to use the "Article of Address" procedure set out in Article 8 of the state constitution, which states: "In order to prevent those, who are vested with authority, from becoming oppressors, the people have a right, at such periods and in such manner as they shall establish by their frame of government, to cause their public officers to return to private life; and to fill up vacant places by certain and regular elections and appointments." Camenker stresses that this "Article of Address" method is different from impeachment, which may imply a trial for "crimes." The Article of Address for removing judges dates back to colonial times, and several of the original 13 states retain the provision in their constitutions.

The exact process for removal through Article of Address is set out in the 98th amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution: "All judicial officers, duly appointed, commissioned and sworn, shall hold their offices during good behavior ... the governor, with the consent of the council, may remove them upon the address of both houses of the legislature." "This can literally be done in a day," Camenker noted, contrasting it with the publicized constitutional amendment method. "We don't have to take two-and-a-half years and three votes."

Much More Than Marriage

Though his efforts are focused, laser-like, on removing the four SJC judges who decided on behalf of homosexual "marriages," Camenker recognizes the fact that the battle is broader than merely redefining marriage. "In my opinion, this is not about marriage," he told THE NEW AMERICAN. "What this is about is legitimizing the [homosexual] lifestyle and being able to force this legitimacy under the law."

Camenker notes that the homosexual lobby is not even primarily interested in the tax and inheritance benefits marriage would bring. "The 'gays' don't care about benefits; they never have.... This is about pushing the agenda, anything they can do to force the issue. Marriage, like religion, is an anathema to the homosexual movement because it is contradictory to everything they do and stand for. The homosexual lifestyle is about promiscuity, it is about going from partner to partner."

"The whole benefits argument is a smokescreen," Camenker concluded. "I am often annoyed that we take it seriously. They only use it, like the civil rights movement, as a prop for pushing their agenda. Their arguments are illogical, they cannot withstand any kind of scrutiny at all, and we treat them like they are real."

Camenker likens the current homosexual move toward marriage to the population control movement. Pointing to the March 1 decision of the California Supreme Court that Catholic Charities must pay for employee birth control, Camenker says that the SJC decision and related illegal executive actions across the nation (in San Francisco and New Paltz, New York, and other places) are incremental steps in forcing people of faith not only to accept a sinful, destructive lifestyle as "legitimate" but to subsidize it. With the California Supreme Court's assault on free exercise of religion, it is not unreasonable to conclude that small employers would soon be forced against their will to pay health and insurance benefits for partners of homosexuals. (Regarding the California decision against Catholic Charities, see "Coerced Contraceptive Coverage" on page 6.)

The homosexual lobby nationwide has taken inspiration from the Massachusetts SJC, which provided impetus for the recent spate of actions by municipal executives across the nation. "The fact that we are allowing this to happen is giving the homosexual movement great energy, and they think that they have won and that they can go further. And we are going to tell them 'No, this is where it stops,'" Camenker says, adding that his new organization could pick up the slack now that the Massachusetts constitutional amendment effort has run its course for the year. "A lot of us don't realize that determined people can change their country very quickly, if they are organized."

"This is more than just a judicial battle," Camenker concludes. "It is a spiritual battle, and it is a propaganda battle."