[« The Cult of the Stupid Morons] [Just in Case You Were Out of Work or Wondering... »]
03/13/2005: Dwyer Whinings
Dwyer's bad day in Court was told in this US News Wire story:"Today, Delegate Don Dwyer continued his noble efforts to protect traditional marriage by forcing a full House vote on the introduction of House Joint Resolution, "Definition of Marriage-Ceremony Between One Man and One Woman."
"It became necessary to seek the introduction of this joint resolution because the House Judiciary Committee failed to properly advance HB 1220 (Constitutional Amendment to define marriage)," stated Dwyer. "The state of Maryland must not forfeit the opportunity to send a clear and unequivocal message that it will defend and protect the sanctity of marriage as a union between one man and one woman."
This latest round of action regarding the Marriage Amendment began last week when Dwyer successfully thwarted attempts by the House Judiciary Committee to kill HB 1220 before reaching a full House vote. Dwyer warned the Committee that if they continued with their plan to eliminate the bill, he would use parliamentary procedure to force a full House vote on the amendment.
Today, Dwyer employed a similar procedure to introduce the joint resolution. This parliamentary procedure requires "late- filed" bills to be voted on by the full House in order to be introduced. "To date there have been 13 late-filed bills introduced to the House," Dwyer observed. "All have received the courtesy of being introduced with overwhelming support-until today."
The joint resolution to re-affirm the definition of marriage by the Maryland General Assembly was not granted introduction. It received 85 affirmative votes, falling 10 short of the required 95 votes for introduction. Thirty-seven members voted against allowing the introduction, nine abstained, and nine were excused from voting.
Surprisingly, House Speaker Michael E. Busch-an ardent opponent of the amendment-voted in favor of the resolution, remarking to Delegate Dwyer, "I think everyone should be granted the courtesy of having their bills introduced."
"As we speak, the constitutionality of Maryland's current marriage law is being challenged," stated Dwyer. "Why then, at such a critical moment, are so many unwilling to extend the most basic courtesy of allowing this resolution to be introduced?"
Following this loss...Dywer whined in a US News Wire release:"Today's decision is yet another devastating blow to our Constitutional form of government and another example of the rampant judicial tyranny our court systems suffer from. The separation of powers was not a lofty goal that our Founding Fathers encouraged us to one day achieve; it is a requirement for our republican form of government to work. The Maryland court system would do well to remember this.
The job of the courts is to make prudential decisions as to whether a law is violated or is not. It is not the court's job to interpret the law and it is absolutely not their job to change the law. That is the responsibility of the legislature, which is why we sought to intervene in this case.
The proper response from the judicial branch to the filing of the original inane case should have been to dismiss it because they had no jurisdiction over the matter. If today's ruling is any guide, the Maryland court system does not believe or accept this simple truth.
The plaintiffs' public response to today's decision demonstrates that they not only hold contempt for the sanctity of marriage-the union between one man and one woman-but for the separation of powers that constitutes our form of government. Despite their claims, this lawsuit has nothing to do with due process, it is not seeking a `humane' resolution and it is not seeking to end some form of discrimination. It is an attempt to circumvent the checks and balances instituted to protect all Marylanders, not advance the agenda of a special interest.
This case amounts to a matter of Civics 101 gone awry. As a duly elected official of Maryland, I will continue to do everything in my power to protect the sanctity of marriage and to fight this insidious agenda."
I've already said my piece about the stupidity of this Constitutional effort by the Conservative Religious Right to enforce its particular form of religious interpretation of "marriage" and views on the Civil and Legal aspects of the Constitution's Fundamental Right to "marry" under the 14th amendment.
Karen on 03.13.05 @ 07:58 AM CST
