Pro-Family Forces Hopeful Mass. Lawmakers Do the Right Thing
by Chad Groening, Bill Fancher, and Jody Brown
November 21, 2003
(AgapePress) - A Massachusetts pro-family organization hopes a constitutional amendment will head off a court order designed to make homosexual "marriage" legal in that state.
On Tuesday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an order to the state legislature to come up with a law within 180 days giving homosexuals the right to marry. But on Friday, lawmakers in the Bay State plan to discuss a constitutional amendment proposal that defines marriage as only between one man and one woman.
The proposed Protection of Marriage Amendment reads as follows:
"It being the public policy of this Commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and the best interests of children, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts. Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent, nor shall it receive the benefits or incidents exclusive to marriage from the Commonwealth, its agencies, departments, authorities, commissions, offices, officials and political subdivisions. Nothing herein shall be construed to effect an impairment of a contract in existence as of the effective date of this amendment."
Evelyn Reilly with the Massachusetts Family Institute is hopeful for a positive outcome. "The governor [Mitt Romney] has said that there will be two tracks -- they'll comply with the judicial demand by crafting some kind of legislation, but at the same time they'll be pursuing the amendment," Reilly explains. "So if same-sex marriage becomes instituted, then in 2006 it could very well be overturned."
She questions the constitutionality of the Supreme Judicial Court being able to order the state legislature to enact a homosexual marriage law. She says there is supposed to be separation of powers in state governments.
"For the court to think that they can tell the legislature what to do in terms of legislation ... sounds unconstitutional to me," she says. "Last year, the legislature had another amendment before it, and they adjourned without voting on it. A suit was filed, but there was no remedy. The court could not force the legislature to do that."
Reilly says it would be "interesting" if lawmakers do the same with this court order. But in the meantime, she says she is happy they are working on the constitutional amendment.
Bob Knight | |
Pressure on State Legislature
Bob Knight of the Culture and Family Institute says even though the Massachusetts high court ruled in favor of same-sex marriages, the fight is not over. He believes that if the people of that state deliver an ultimatum to their lawmakers that they better defend marriage, something good could yet emerge."I mean, this is the state where they fired the first shot at Concord against the tyranny of King George," Knight says. "Certainly what the court has done is actually more intrusive into the affairs of people in Massachusetts than whatever the king did with his taxation."
He is also optimistic that the lawmakers may make a stand against the state's judicial branch. "What I'm hoping is that the legislature of Massachusetts will say to the court 'You have no business ordering us to do anything -- we will take under advice whatever you say, but then we're going to do what we're going to do,'" he says, "and [then] pass a constitutional amendment affirming that marriage is the union of one man and one woman."
Another pro-family spokesman notes that supporters of traditional marriage are already applying pressure to members of the legislature. Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council says it may be hard to see, but there is a ray of light in the court's action.
"The only thin, silver lining in this decision was that the court did stay its decision for 180 days -- and that will give the Massachusetts legislature time to respond," he says. "We certainly hope that their response will be to adopt or to approve the marriage affirmation and protection amendment that's already been introduced."
Sprigg says the key to that happening will be the amount of pressure that can be generated by pro-family activists and citizens who are tired of judges making laws and forcing their own personal opinions on the population.
