ACRU

Equality’ for Homosexuals, Down East?

The ACLU and its homosexual “rights” allies in Maine are up in arms over a proposed citizens’ initiative there, which would define marriage as involving one man and one woman, and would withdraw public money and support from several projects preferred by homosexuals. This opposition, which appears in all states that have referendum provisions, demonstrates that the ACLU is, in fact, opposed to popular sovereignty, the idea that the citizens possess the ultimate power in a republic such as the United States of America.

The facts for this story, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article in the New England Blade on May 14, concerning the approval of the title and text of a proposed citizen’s petition on homosexual “rights” in Maine.

Because the Blade is written for homosexual readers and their supporters, it is necessary to read between the lines of this report to determine what is actually happening. The title says, “Anti-Gay Maine Referendum Language Certified.” The fact is that the Christian Civic League of Maine, following state procedures, submitted an initiative proposal to the Secretary of State. After negotiations back and forth between the League and the Secretary, the final title and language that would appear on the petitions, was agreed.

The title of the initiative, which will appear on next year’s ballot if the League gathers 55,000 valid signatures by next January, is “An Act to Protect Marriage and Promote Equality.” The Blade takes a dim view of this proposed Act, saying that it “would “would not only strip the state of its laws prohibiting anti-gay discrimination but also ban gay marriage, civil unions, gay adoption and funding for civil rights teams (the Maine version of a gay-straight alliance) in public schools.”

From that description, it seems that the Act would define marriage in Maine (the Down East State) as involving one man and one woman, no more, no less, no substitutions. It would also ban civil unions other than between one man and one woman, would prohibit adoption by homosexual couples, and would bar groups in public schools using public funds and facilities from promoting homosexuality for the students.

The Maine ACLU and various homosexual and lesbian groups had opposed the proposed initiative, saying in a letter to the Secretary of State that the initiative was “so poorly written” that it would not allow the people “to meaningfully exercise their constitutional and statutory lawmaking power.” Given the objections expressed in the article, the ACLU and its allies want to kill the initiative, not improve it.

This intent is shown by the comment of the Executive Director of EqualityMaine, a homosexual “rights” group, who says they will seek “volunteers to stand with the people the League recruits to collect signatures for the petition.” The purpose is to assure that “signers will not misinterpret the petition’s purpose and [will] understand [it] before they sign….”

The ACLU groups have organized a letter-writing campaign against the initiative, with letters published in “all major newspapers” in Maine. According to the article, all such newspapers have run editorials against the initiative.

The overall point behind the efforts of the ACLU and its allies is this: they want to derail or defeat any initiatives in any states which would allow the people themselves to use the initiative process to write laws governing references to homosexuals in the domestic relations and education laws of that state. Likewise, the ACLU is reluctant to have such laws written by elected legislatures in most states. (Only half of the states have initiative provisions in their constitutions, which allow groups of citizens to propose laws and place them on the ballot for approval.)

Instead, as news stories from across the country demonstrate on a weekly basis, the ACLU seeks to have “laws” to protect “homosexual rights” forced on the public not by legislators who face reelection, but by federal judges who serve for life and will never face elections.

In short, in issues like this the ACLU demonstrates its distrust and disrespect for the “republican form of government,” as the Constitution calls government by elected representatives. In such issues, the ACLU shows that it disagrees with Thomas Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence that governments “derive… their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The attitude of the ACLU is, “if the people cannot get it right, judges should tell them what to do.” But that is not the legitimate basis of American government.

Source for original story on the Net:

http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/?class_code=Ne&article_code=5430