“Gay Marriage” – It’s Alive!

By J. Matt Barber

With its 2003 Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court circumvented the constitutional process and arbitrarily imposed “same-sex marriage” on the people of Massachusetts in what amounted to a brazen and contemptuous act of judicial activism.  Now members of the liberal Massachusetts state legislature have surrendered to the demands of the militant homosexual lobby and have betrayed both the citizens of Massachusetts and the democratic process by preventing voters from weighing in on this crucial issue.

Prior to Goodridge, the concept of a man “marrying” a man or a woman “marrying” a woman was widely and properly considered preposterous.  However, with their decision in Goodridge, four of the court’s seven social mad scientists have zapped artificial life into a cultural “gay-marriage” Frankenstein monster.  And that radical and bizarre new concept has been terrorizing the countryside every since.

After the Massachusetts Supreme Court — through judicial fiat — made Massachusetts the only state to recognize “same-sex marriage” by miraculously divining that the framers of the state constitution really intended that Patrick Henry could marry Henry Patrick, many in Massachusetts — embarrassed by the court’s unprecedented leftist extremism — felt that their state had become a laughingstock and initiated the constitutional process in an effort to undo this court forced insanity. 

Recognizing that “if everything is marriage … nothing is marriage at all,” the good folks of Massachusetts decided to fight back and to defend the cultural cornerstone of legitimate marriage. 

In 2005, supporters of marriage accumulated enough petition signatures to send a constitutional amendment to the Massachusetts legislature which, if put to a vote by the people and passed, would have properly restored the definition of marriage to one man – one woman.

At that time, lawmakers refused to take up the initiative for a vote.  But, after it became abundantly clear that by ignoring the measure they were shirking their constitutional duty, the passive-aggressive patsies begrudgingly got around to doing their job.

However, in order for the amendment to make it onto the 2008 ballot, at least 50 legislators had to vote in support of the measure in two consecutive sessions.  But despite broad support and almost two hundred thousand petition signatures, lawmakers thumbed their collective nose at their constituents and voted by just over a three-to-one margin (151-45) during the second session to deny the citizens of Massachusetts a voice.

Several representatives inexplicably pulled a 180 degree turn.  The measure passed with 62 votes during the first term, but about a dozen lawmakers crumbled under the pressure during the second term and changed their position.  There were even allegations of a quid pro quo for some of those who changed their votes.  It remains to be seen what — if any — payoff they will receive for their political treachery.   

In any event, the heat was on from both the homosexual lobby and liberal big hitters in Washington — such as Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama — who desperately wanted to kill the measure so that the “gay marriage” issue — which has historically helped elect conservatives — would not be on the table in 2008.  (Ironically, they may have unwittingly made it more of an issue than it would have been had the amendment gone forward.)

There were four Massachusetts state legislators in particular who were most disloyal to their constituents —  two Democrats and two Republicans — elected in 2006 after expressly running on a pro-family platform and a promise to vote in favor of the amendment.  Republicans Richard Ross and Paul Loscocco and Democrats Angelo Puppolo and Geraldo Alicea simply lied to their constituents by promising to vote for the amendment and then shamelessly breaking that promise. 

Buoyed by their demonstrated ability to silence the voters of Massachusetts, homosexual activists are now pushing to repeal a 1913 law that prevents homosexuals from coming from other states to “marry” in Massachusetts.  The goal is to set the table for same-sex couples to “marry” in Massachusetts and to then return to their home states to file federal lawsuits raising the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution in an attempt to force those states to recognize Massachusetts “gay marriages.”  True to form, liberals plan to once again use activist courts to achieve what they were unable to accomplish through legitimate and democratic means. 

If the 1913 law is repealed and homosexual activists have success with like-minded judges, then we can expect the “gay marriage” levy to break, flooding the countryside with Hurricane Katrina-like destruction to the marriage and family foundation upon which our society rests. 

If two people of the same sex must be allowed to “marry,” then what of bisexuals?  Don’t they have a “right” to marry the persons of their choosing?  Don’t they have a “right” to marry both the man and the woman they love?  What possible justification would there be for preventing polygamist marriages once the true definition of marriage is done away with? 

And what about incest?  A brother and a sister?  A father and a daughter?  If it’s discrimination to prevent same-sex couples from “marrying,” then why not couples who just happen to be blood relatives?  Once the castle gate of traditional marriage bursts open and that “gay marriage” creature escapes — there’s nothing to contain him … anything goes.                     

Thousands of years of history, every major world religion and good ole’ fashioned common sense dictate that legitimate marriage exists only between a male and female and that it’s a sacred and fundamental cornerstone to any healthy society.  Although this ballot initiative wasn’t perfect, in that it would have grandfathered existing “same-sex marriages” in the state, the citizens of Massachusetts should have at least been allowed to speak.  But instead, Massachusetts lawmakers have arrogantly and disdainfully told their own constituents to shut up and go home. 

Still, pro-family forces in Massachusetts and across America will fight on as the left continues to ramp up efforts to radically redefine marriage into oblivion.   

As for the “gay marriage” monster: In the words of Dr. Frankenstein — “It’s alive!”  And it’s pounding on the castle door.

At least it’s alive for now — in Massachusetts.  And it’s going to take both a strong-willed America, and very likely a federal constitutional amendment, to kill it once and for all.  Only then can we put “gay marriage” back in the ground where it belongs.

Matt Barber is one of the "like-minded men" with Concerned Women for America. He is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law and serves as CWA's policy director for cultural issues.

By Matt Barber Click here for bio and archived articles