This makes my head hurt by the way.

In July, Gov. Deval Patrick (D) signed the repeal of a 1913 law that said marriage licenses could not be issued to couples whose weddings would not be recognized in their home states.

The conservative group MassResistance has begun circulating petitions asking voters to reinstate the old law. 

Earlier this month, Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley signed the petition, but now O’Malley is voicing his opposition to the use by MassResistance of his name in asking other priests in the state to circulate the petition at mass.

“It is has come to our attention that you may be receiving a letter from the organization MassResistance, signed by Mr. Brian Camenker, concerning Cardinal Seán having signed a petition pertaining to Massachusetts’ ‘1913 Law’, which deals with out of state couples seeking to marry in the Commonwealth,” O’Malley said in a letter to priests throughout Massachusetts.

“The letter also solicits your help in gathering petition signatures at masses this coming weekend. Please know that the Archdiocese was not contacted about this letter prior to its having been mailed.

“Additionally, the letter presumes to speak of Cardinal Sean’s personal disposition and activities he would undertake as a private citizen. Neither the Archdiocese nor the Cardinal were consulted about these matters at any time. Further, the Archdiocese would not ask pastors or any other persons to gather petition signatures at masses. The Archdiocese’s position concerning political matters is that materials shall not be distributed unless authorized by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, or the Ordinary of the diocese. Regarding the Archdiocese of Boston, none of these has authorized the MassResistance mailing.”

The state Conference of Bishops and MassResistance were two of the three original groups that formed an umbrella organization to attempt to get a ballot measure before voters to amend the Massachusetts constitution to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.  That effort failed when it was blocked by the legislature.

The third group involved, the Massachusetts Family Institute, already has said it would not participate in the out-of-state marriage repeal bid.

“There is no winning on this issue,” the institute said in August when MassResistance began its effort.

Same-sex couples have been free to marry in Massachusetts since 2004, but only if they were residents of the state. 

Gov. Mitt Romney (R) dusted off the 1913 law and threatened to charge local clerks if they issued marriage licenses to out-of-state same-sex couples.

The old law was originally passed when interracial marriage was legal in Massachusetts but not in most other parts of the country.

After the law was repealed by the legislature, MassResistance began collecting signatures to have a reinstatement question put to voters.  If the group collects enough signatures it still would need approval of the legislature.  The earliest it could appear on the ballot would be 2011.

The Associated Press-National Constitution Center poll of views on the Constitution found people wary of governmental authority after years of controversy over the Bush administration’s expansion of executive power, and especially skeptical of increasing the president’s powers.

“There is clearly a concern about executive power and the balance of power that comes out in a couple of different ways,” said Joseph Torsella, president of the Philadelphia-based organization. The nonpartisan center is dedicated to educating the public about the Constitution.

Torsella said he believes the polls reflect long-standing skepticism of presidential power. “I think it’s a basic chord in the American song and it gets louder and stronger depending on what’s happening in the headlines,” he said.

The survey also found Americans are divided over government recognition of gay marriage, but younger people are far more likely to support it.

Also, there is overwhelming opposition to the government’s power to take private property for redevelopment and to amending the Constitution to allow foreign-born citizens to be president.

President Bush and Congress are at record low approval ratings in recent polls, with Congress even less popular than the president. But in the new poll, the public is more reluctant to expand the president’s powers than those of Congress.

Two-thirds of Americans oppose altering the balance of power among the three branches of government to strengthen the presidency, even when they thought that doing so would improve the economy or national security. People were more evenly split over giving Congress more power in the same circumstances.

“The Constitution sets up three branches of government and to increase the power of one at the expense of the others endangers the fundamental structure,” said poll participant James Crowder, 74, of Cockeysville, Md., a Baltimore suburb. “This current president and his vice president have distorted the office of president so much that it will take an enormous amount of time, if ever, for us to recover from that.” Crowder is a Democrat and a retired Episcopal priest.

In one area, the poll found Americans clearly on Congress’ side. They said Congress should have the power to require senior presidential aides to testify before House and Senate committees – a topic currently wending its way through the courts. The administration is trying to prevent former White House counsel Harriet Miers from testifying about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys.

The government’s power to take private property for redevelopment had little support in the poll, not even when owners are paid a fair price and the project creates local jobs.

Participants said they consider private property rights conferred by the Constitution as important as freedom of speech and religion.

The Fifth Amendment allows the government to seize property for public use with just compensation.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that governments may seize people’s homes and businesses – even against their will – for private economic development when there is a corresponding public purpose of bringing more jobs and tax revenue.

In the new poll of people’s views on the Constitution, 75 percent disagreed. Opposition to the government power known as eminent domain was as strong among liberals as conservatives.

Cities, backed by some liberals, generally see the power to seize private property as an important tool for urban renewal projects crucial to revitalizing cities.

Many conservatives – particularly in the West – have called the high court decision a dangerous interpretation of the Constitution that would lead to abuse of individual rights.

Since the ruling, 39 states have enacted legislation or passed ballot measures restricting the government’s power to take property, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The poll also found a split on whether governments should recognize gay marriage. But a majority said same-sex couples should be entitled to the same benefits as married, heterosexual couples.

The answers to these questions revealed a sharp generational split. More than two-thirds of people under 35 favor recognition of gay marriage, compared with less than 40 percent of those 35 and older.

Majorities also favor following the rule of law, even if that sometimes comes at the expense of short-term public safety considerations and protecting the rights of everyone in the face of majority opposition.

The public broadly supports government aid to religious organizations for social service programs. But that support drops sharply when organizations also promote their religious beliefs while providing help to the homeless and other social services.

The AP-National Constitution Center poll involved telephone interviews with 1,000 adults nationwide. The survey was conducted Aug. 22-29 by Abt SRBI Inc. and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

The Mason-Dixon poll, taken for The Orlando Sentinel, shows that 57 percent of voters support the amendment while 36 perecent said they intend to vote against it.  Florida’s constitution requires a 60 percent majority to amend the document.

With a four percent margin of error in the poll results are too close to say the amendment is likely to be defeated, but most political analysts say usually such voter initiatives start out with a large percentage which becomes whittled down as opponents make voters aware of the issues and consequences.

The issue likely will be determined by the seven percent who said they were undecided.

A broad coalition of LGBT groups and their allies say they are mounting a massive campaign to defeat the amendment.

The proposed amendment says, “Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

Florida already has a law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples but supporters of the amendment say the law could be overturned in court.

The conservative Florida4Marriage attempted to have the proposed amendment placed on the 2006 ballot but fell short of the required number of signatures. Under Florida law the organization was allowed to continue to add names to the petition in a bid to get it on the 2008 ballot. It was certified in February to go on the November ballot.

Last year it was discovered that the state GOP was bankrolling the amendment effort.

An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times into funding for the Florida4Marriage found that of the $193,000 that had been raised by the group $150,000 came from a single donor – the Florida Republican Party.

Opponents of the proposed amendment say in addition to barring gay marriage it would bar civil unions and would be used to deny partner benefits not only to same-sex couples but also to unmarried couples who live together.

That has spurred Florida Red and Blue a non-partisan organization to enter the fray on behalf of unmarried opposite-sex couples.

Last year in just 60 days the group amassed more than $1 million to battle the proposed amendment.

The committee voted 3-2 to hold hearings on whether Sen. Jack Harper (R) intentionally broke the Legislature’s rules by cutting off a Democratic filibuster and forcing a vote.

One of two openly gay senators in the legislature called for the ethics investigation, saying Harper and other GOP leaders engaged in dirty tricks.

Sen. Ken Cheuvront (D) asked the committee to issue a formal reprimand against Harper. The complaint accuses Harper of “conspiring” with other Republican leaders to cut off microphones last month during the Democratic filibuster aimed at killing the anti-gay measure.

Republicans accuse Cheuvront of political posturing.

After the microphones were cut, Republicans forced an immediate vote on the proposed amendment. It passed on a 16-4 vote. It had previously been approved by the House.

The issue now goes to voters in November.

In 2006, a similar amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions failed when put to voters.

Public opinion polls have showed that while most people in the state oppose same-sex marriage, they do not want to enshrine that in the constitution.

The current amendment proposal does not mention civil unions.

Arizona already has a Defense of Marriage Act that limits marriage to opposite-sex couples.  Supporters of the constitutional amendment say they fear the law could be overturned by the courts. Amending the state constitution would tie the hands of the judiciary.

A hearing on the ethics complaint must be held within five to 20 days.

No matter what the committee decides, it will not affect the ballot measure from going to voters.