In Defense of Marriage
Vol: 26 Issue: 19 Wednesday, November 19, 2003
The Massachusetts Supreme Court decided yesterday that it is unconstitutional to deny homosexuals the right to get married. By endorsing full marriages, the court went beyond so-called “civil union” laws passed in Vermont and California that give homosexual couples some but not all of the same rights as normal marriages. In fact, in its ruling the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s decision means that homosexual marriage IS a ‘normal’ marriage.
In its 4-3 ruling, the high court decided, “Barred access to … civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community’s most rewarding and cherished institutions. . That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law.”
The Supreme Court seized on the fact that the framers of the state constitution did not define ‘marriage’ as being between a man and a woman. (They also failed to define ‘alive’ as being a state of ‘not dead’, paving the way for legalized abortion.)
In the same state of Massachusetts, failing to consummate a marriage is grounds for annullment, so it would seem that defining a marriage as being between two people capable of this biological act is already a matter of law. But it isn’t politically correct. So, instead, the justices created a politically correct version of the law from the bench.
It is a surreal ruling, made more surreal by the comments of the victorious lawyer; “I’m thrilled,” said Mary Bonauto, the Boston lawyer who brought the challenge on behalf of seven same-sex couples denied marriage licenses by county clerks in Massachusetts. “I’ve talked to thousands of people who have really suffered because they don’t have access to marriage. They will have a chance to be equal families.”
A chance to be ‘equal families’? Lessee, 2 x 3 ‘equals’ six. That means two threes are THE SAME as six. Ok, here’s two ‘families.’ Fred and Steve. The other is George and Martha.
Twenty-five years later, there’s still just Fred and Steve.
And George and Martha, and their kids, Bill and Sally and Elizabeth and Tom, and their husbands, and wives, and THEIR kids.
The Supreme Court not only redefined marriage, they redefined the word ‘equal’ so as to render it meaningless. They stole a word right out of the dictionary!
The court gave Massachusetts’ legislature 180 days to comply with its decision. Because it was based on state constitutional guarantees of liberty and equal protection, the decision cannot be appealed to federal court.
Although the powerful speaker of Massachusetts’ House of Representatives, Democrat Thomas Finneran, and Republican Gov. Mitt Romney oppose same-sex marriages, most legal experts said the decision left little or no wiggle room. A ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ — constitutional amendment to limit marriage to heterosexual couples could not be put before voters until 2006.
The federal government already has a ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ defining marriage as including only opposite-sex couples for the purpose of interpreting federal statutes such as the family leave law and tax benefits. Thirty-seven states have followed suit, passing their own “Defense of Marriage” laws.
Interestingly, the federal definition of marriage has no power over individual states.
Ever notice the only binding federal laws are the stupid ones? The feds can force the states to bus kids across town to go to school in unfamiliar neighborhoods. The feds can decide for states whether or not they acknowledge the 10 Commandments as the basis for their legal systems. But the federal government’s definition of marriage is now meaningless.
The Massachusetts ruling means a homosexual couple living in New York can go to Massachusetts, get ‘married’ and return to New York and seek recognition of their marriages in New York under the federal constitutional provision that requires each state to give “full faith and credit” to the laws of other states.
The only states that do NOT have to honor Massachusetts ‘marriage’ licenses are the thirty-seven who have already passed a state ‘Defense of Marriage’ Act.
Unless there is a federal Constitutional amendment clearly explaining what never needed explanation until now, the words ‘marriage’ and ‘family’ are as meaningless as the judicially-redefined ‘equal’.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said all options were on the table, adding: “It is an issue – as we watch what’s happening with the courts – that in some shape or form we’ll be addressing here in the United States Senate.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said the court’s decision leaves Congress little choice but to enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage.
“On an issue as fundamental as marriage, it is the job of the American people, through their legislators, to decide – not the Massachusetts courts,” Cornyn said.
U.S. Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.) said the ruling was yet another attack on American values. He said it would “only further the resolve of those of us who seek to protect the sanctity of marriage.”
The issue of gay marriage is going to be a major element in the 2004 Election, right up there with abortion.
Marriage is not just a civil union. It is a God-given institution, clearly and carefully defined as being between a man and a woman. Marriage and family are symbols of our relationship with God.
The Church is the Bride of Christ, eagerly awaiting the Bridegroom and the subsequent Marriage Supper of the Lamb.
Ephesians 5:23 clearly demonstrates the interdependence between the institution of marriage and our relationship with Christ.
“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and He is the saviour of the body.” And again, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it” (5:25)
The family relationship forms the basis for understanding our relationship to the Father. In 1992, I was invited to celebrate Shabbat, the Sabbath supper, at the Jerusalem home of Gershon Saloman, leader of the Temple Mount Faithful Movement in Israel.
It was a wonderful experience. And I met his children. They called him ‘Abba’ — the Israeli equivalent to ‘Daddy’. That is OUR relationship to the Father.
“For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby WE cry, Abba, Father. (Romans 8:15)
“And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” (Galatians 4:6)
The assault against marriage in the courts isn’t just a civil issue. It speaks directly to the heart of Judeo-Christianity, seeking to redefine it in such a way as to bring about the collapse of its role in American society. The redefinition of the family unit makes our understanding of our relationship to God’s forever family as clear as mud — which is the enemy’s ultimate goal.
Paul writes, “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.” (2 Timothy 3:1) He goes on to give a social outline that appears to be ripped right out of today’s headlines. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. . .But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men. ” (2 Timothy 3:2-5,9)