GLAD to contest anti-gay Massachusetts amemdment in court

Buseck said GLAD's argument in the suit will be that the certification of the petition violated Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution, which lays out the rules for initiative petitions and explicitly bans petitions that relate to "the reversal of a judicial decision." Buseck said it is clear that the intent of the marriage amendment petition is to overturn the Goodridge decision, and it clearly falls under Article 48's list of excluded subjects for petitions.

"When you look at those words {in Article 48} I would think that the commonsense meaning of those words couldnít mean anything other than the meaning that applies," said Buseck.

To the layperson, GLAD's reading of Article 48 seems fairly straightforward, but the issue is likely to get more complicated should the case go before the SJC. GLAD made the same argument to Reilly's office before he certified the petitions for signature gathering on Sept. 7, and Reilly and GLAD traded memos back and forth last August outlining their different readings of Article 48. Reilly argued that Article 48 only applied to amendments that explicitly recalled a judicial decision, rather than to those that changed the constitution to alter the way courts rule in future decisions. Both sides tried to bolster their argument by reaching back to the constitutional conventions of 1917 and 1918, when Article 48 was ratified, drawing on testimony during the conventions to argue for their interpretation of the law.

Terrence Burke, a spokesperson for Reilly, said Reilly stands by his earlier reading of Article 48. "This initiative petition is not reversing a judicial decision. It changes the law going forward," said Burke.

More:
http://www.baywindows.com/news/2005/12/01/News/See-You.In.Court-1118131.shtml