Surge Favors Marriage Amendment, Rejects Massachusetts' Judicial Activism

by Bill Fancher, Jody Brown, and Fred Jackson
February 9, 2004

(AgapePress) - As predicted by many pro-family leaders, the outrage being expressed over the potential legalization of homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts may be awakening a sleeping giant. Across the nation, proponents of the traditional, biblical concept of marriage are rising up in protest to fend off the efforts of homosexual activists and their supporters who are demanding full-fledged recognition of same-sex unions.

Legislators in Massachusetts have until Wednesday to decide how they will respond to the state's Supreme Judicial Court's decision saying homosexual marriage must be legalized. The legislature can act to allow the people of the state to vote on a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman -- or it can defy the biblical standard of marriage and yield to the superior court, granting marital status to same-sex couples.

Genevieve Wood of the Family Research Council says the impact of what happens Wednesday in Boston will be enormous. "Wednesday is an extremely important day -- not just for the people of Massachusetts, but obviously for those across the country, because as goes marriage in Massachusetts, will go marriage likely across the rest of this country," Wood says. "So it's extremely important what happens there."

Both sides of the issue -- those who wish to preserve God's definition of marriage and those who want to create man's version of marriage -- are turning up the political pressure as Wednesday nears.

Over the weekend, leaders of churches, synagogues, and mosques in Massachusetts condemned the high court's directive, which calls for legalized same-sex marriage by mid-May. Representatives of an organization of evangelical churches, the Roman Catholic Church, an Islamic council, the 80-church Black Ministerial Alliance, 100 Christian Orthodox churches, and the Jewish community all signed a statement urging lawmakers to pass a constitutional ban on homosexual marriage.

However, the soonest any such measure could be on the ballot for Massachusetts voters is November 2006.

Frist Speaks in Senate
In Washington, DC, last week, Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist made an emphatic statement on the floor of the Senate in support of traditional marriage, saying it should remain the union of a man and a woman.

"The evidence is overwhelming that children do best with a mother and a father," the Tennessee Republican said. "We're gambling with our future if we permit activists judges to redefine marriage for our whole society."

Frist said he wanted to make it very clear that "we reject intolerance [and] hatred" and that all American citizens must be treated with kindness and civility. "But marriage should not be redefined by the courts," he said. "And we in this body can't let it; we won't let it."

The senate majority leader noted that Congress already codified that principle in the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which was signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton. "We must protect, preserve, and strengthen the institution of marriage against activist judges," he said. "If that means we must amend the Constitution, as it seems increasingly likely, then we will do just that."

Sooners in a Huff
Members of Oklahoma's delegation to Congress have expressed their strong opposition to the judicial activism reflected in the Massachusetts court ruling. Senator Don Nickles calls the decision "an outrage" and "very troubling."

"This is a case of courts thinking they should be legislating, even when the court is split 4-3 [the vote by the Supreme Judicial Court]," he told the Tulsa World. "Something as important as the institution of marriage should be decided by the people, not an un-elected court."

While Nickles has not stated his position on a constitutional amendment, his Sooner State counterpart in the Senate, Jim Inhofe -- who earlier indicated he did not favor an amendment -- told the World that if a statutory response does not work, he would vote for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage.

"The institution of marriage, a man and a woman, is ingrained in this nation and in my theology," Inhofe said.

Representative Ernest Istook views the Massachusetts ruling as a distortion of constitutional law. "This is a two-pronged attack, attacking both traditional marriage and our right as Americans to govern ourselves, rather than being governed by un-elected judges," Istook said. "It's shameful for judges to endorse such a radical agenda, and doubly shameful for them to rule that we can't touch their rulings through the normal legislative process."

Also expressing their support for a federal marriage amendment were Republican congressmen John Sullivan, Frank Lucas, and Tom Cole, as well as Democrat Brad Carson, who is a Southern Baptist.

38th for DOMA
Heading westward, the State of Ohio became the 38th state in the nation to enact a Defense of Marriage Act when, on Friday, Governor Bob Taft signed H.B. 272 into law. In a news release concerning the signing, Taft said the new law is not a law of intolerance. Instead, he said, it "reaffirms existing Ohio law with respect to our most basic, rooted, and time-honored institution: marriage between a man and a woman."

Governor Taft stated it was necessary that Ohio act to safeguard its own marriage laws from "out-of-state enactments and judicial decrees." Judges in other states, he said, "should not and cannot" hold the power to redefine marriage in Ohio.

"It is for the citizens of Ohio, through our elected representatives ... to determine our laws and ... to define our fundamental institutions," the statement read.

The executive director of Christian Coalition of Ohio say while it is a "great victory" that Taft signed the DOMA, it is important to remain vigilant. Like Taft, he points to events in Massachusetts. "Those who wish to end marriage as you and I know it are relentless -- and they have allies in key positions like the Massachusetts Supreme Court," says Chris Long. "Because we have tyrannical judges usurping power from elected representatives, I am convinced that in the end we are going to need a constitutional amendment to protect marriage."

A Relentless Push
Meanwhile, a report says public schools across the country are being encouraged to use the Massachusetts debate on homosexual marriage to discuss the issue in their classrooms.

Cybercast News reports that public school teachers have been given what is called a "curriculum guide" to use as a basis of discussion. But the so-called guide, a six-point lesson plan, is the work of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). The group advocates an end to any activity it considers anti-homosexual bias.

The report says the guide frames homosexual marriage as "one of the most significant civil and human rights issues of our time," similar to anti-slavery and women's rights movements.

Cybercast reports the indoctrination campaign has outraged pro-family and parental groups across the country. The head of a Massachusetts parents group put it this way: "These guys are in the high schools of Massachusetts as we speak, and they are proselytizing the kids in a huge way."