Attorney General Martha Coakley said last night that if Massachusetts voters were to approve a ban on same-sex marriages, she would back any efforts to challenge the measure on constitutional grounds.
“… if the proposed amendment was successful, there would be protracted, hard-fought litigation about the constitutionality of such a provision,” she said in a speech at the annual dinner of the Massachusetts Lesbian & Gay Bar Association. “If that battle is necessary, you have my support.”
One could argue that this amendment is an unwise use of the Constitution (though a use necessitated by our legislature’s practice of fleeing headlong from any legislative action on this question). One could argue that it was “bad law”, making it just one example among so many. But I am stumped as to how the Attorney General could argue that a constitutional amendment enacted through due process was unconstitutional. The Globe didn't ask and doesn't explain. I wasn’t at the MLGBA dinner to drink that Kool-Aid, I guess.
Gun control advocates would doubtless be eager to apply the same legal logic to the 2nd Amendment.
Hat Tip: Constitutionally Correct