Fr. Roger J. Landry
Editorial
The Anchor
January 5, 2007
On November 9th, after 109 legislators voted to recess the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention until January 2nd, supporters of same-sex marriage gloated that they had effectively killed the Protection of Marriage Amendment. That they were proven wrong on Tuesday is a testimony to the hard work of so many who persevered in making sure that no stone would be left unturned in trying to get overcome legislators’ attempts to avoid following the Constitution.
Few thought that help would come from the Supreme Judicial Court, the institution that by a one-vote majority forced the same-sex marriage mess on the citizens of the Commonwealth. But proponents of the amendment appealed to them anyway, to try to get them to compel the legislators to fulfill their sworn duty to follow the Constitution.
In a unanimous December 27 decision, the Court gave what turned out to be decisive help. They forcefully reminded legislators that they have “a constitutional duty to vote, by the yeas and nays, on the merits of all pending initiative amendments before recessing on January 2, 2007. With respect to legislative action on proposals for constitutional amendments introduced to the General Court by initiative petition, the language … is not ambiguous … and beyond serious debate.”
Legislators were now faced with a choice, to uphold their sworn oath to follow the state Constitution on violate it by failing to take an up-down vote on the merits of the amendment. They chose to vote — and the pro-amendment side had more than the twenty-five percent necessary to move the amendment on to the next session.
For the amendment to come before the voters in November 2008, it must be approved again by twenty-five percent of the new session of representatives and senators at the State House. There’s still the chance that opponents of the amendment may try to cheat on this second round like they did in the first. Just as they did leading up to Tuesday’s convention,, citizens must continue their vigilance to keep legislators accountable to their oath to uphold the Constitution in this second round.
As has become clear over the course of the past few years, what’s at stake is not just the integrity of the institution of marriage, but our method of government. That so many legislators had gone on record that they would continue to violate their constitutional oath to follow the Constitution — even after the Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling — is ominous.
An oath is a sworn promise to God that is the basic grounds for trust. In a courtroom, for example, when a witness swears on the word of God that he will tell “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God” what he is essentially saying is, “I may be able to deceive the lawyers, the judge, the jury and everyone in this courtroom, but I know I cannot deceive God. I am making a solemn promise to him that I will not lie and if I do, I know he will hold me accountable in this life or the next.” While we may not know the witness enough to trust him personally, we do trust the fact that few people would lie to God after making a solemn promise to him to tell the truth. Few people would want to gain a favorable verdict in this life if it meant that they would thereby gain an unfavorable one in eternity.
Similarly, when our public officials swear on the Word of God that they will uphold the Constitution, they are saying to us in essence, “I know you may not trust me or trust politicians in general to keep my promise to you, but I am now making a promise to God that I will do my duty to follow the laws. If you don’t know me well enough to trust me to keep my word to you, at least know that I’m not stupid enough to break my promise to Him.” When a legislator deliberately chooses to violate his oath to uphold the Constitution, therefore, he is undermining the very grounds for citizens’ trust in him. If a legislator would break a promise even to God, why should citizens think he would uphold his promises to them? He is showing that he is not a man of his word.
Moreover, by failing to follow the Constitution, a legislator is undermining the foundations for a law-abiding civil society. If lawmakers will not follow the law, why should the citizens follow the statutes they votes to pass? Our form of government is no longer one of everyone equally under the rule of law, but a system of power, where those with power force others to follow the law but violate it themselves.
That our new Governor Deval Patrick on Monday urged legislators “by any means necessary” to defeat the amendment — in other words, even by violating their oath to uphold the Constitution — is a troubling sign of his overall philosophy regarding the oath he himself swore on the Amistad Bible on Wednesday and what he thinks his and their responsibility is before the Constitution of the Commonwealth.
It’s another sign of how much work supporters of marriage and supporters of our form of government need to continue to do in 2007. They do so buoyed by a stunning victory on the second day of the new year.