© 2007 J. Matt Barber
its 2003 Goodridge v. Dept.
of Public Health decision, the
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
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
that “if everything is marriage … nothing is marriage at all,”
the good folks of
2005, supporters of marriage accumulated enough petition signatures to
send a constitutional amendment to the
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.
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
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.
any event, the heat was on from both the homosexual lobby and liberal
big hitters in
by their demonstrated ability to silence the voters of
the 1913 law is repealed and homosexual activists have success with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
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?
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.
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
pro-family forces in
for the “gay marriage” monster: In the words of Dr. Frankenstein
— “It’s alive!” And
it’s pounding on the castle door.
least it’s alive for now — in
Matt Barber is one of the “like-minded men” with Concerned Women for America and serves as CWA’s Policy Director for Cultural Issues.