While Beacon Hill’s treatment of the pending marriage amendment has provoked 2 recent editorials in the Wall Street Journal (1,2),
December 28, 2006
To the Editors:
The members of the joint session 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.
Past editorials of the Boston Globe have agreed that such a vote is a constitutional duty (‘Delayed, not denied’, July 13 2006 and ‘Vote the ban down’, July 8, 2006). Now that the SJC has made this point unambiguous, your editorials can either urge lawmakers to fulfill their oath of office and perform their constitutional duty, or urge them to discard their duty to the constitution because of their personal distaste for the likely outcome. The SJC ruling has removed any excuse for fence-sitting. Do you continue to support the rule of law through our Constitution, or do you advocate that our legislature ignore it?
Now is the time to speak on this question.