Advocates of Same-Sex Unions Prefer Judges, Courts -- Not Public -- Determine 'Marriage'
by Allie Martin and Jody Brown
February 10, 2004
(AgapePress) - A pro-family activist says last week's decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court paving the way for homosexual "marriage" is an example of liberal activism at its worst.
Last week, in response to a question posed by the State Senate, the Massachusetts high court refused to allow anything short of full and equal marriage rights for homosexual couples. The state's lawmakers are convening on Wednesday to determine how they will respond to that directive. Essentially, they can do one of two things: act to allow the citizens of the state to vote on a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman; of defy the biblical standard of marriage and yield to the superior court's ruling.
Matt Daniels is with the Alliance for Marriage, a group actively pushing for a federal marriage amendment, says activist judges like those in Massachusetts want to keep the issue out of the voting booth.
"We all know [that] the polls are quite clear: Americans deeply believe that marriage [involves] a man and a woman," Daniels says, "and the groups behind these lawsuits [calling for recognition of same-sex unions] don't want to let the judgment of the people be the final word."A survey released shortly after last week's announcement in Massachusetts shows that by a 2-1 margin (60% to 31%), Americans oppose any law legalizing same-sex marriage. However, that poll by the National Annenberg Election Survey also indicated that 49% of Americans oppose a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriages, while 42% favor such action.
White House officials denounced the Massachusetts court's ruling shortly after it was announced. According to Daniels, the issue promises to be a major focus of the Bush re-election campaign this fall.
"I think there's no question that this issue is actually more important than the next election, and secondly -- yes, it will be a huge issue," he says, "and that's good." Why? "Because when it's debated and discussed [in public], as opposed to being handled by lawyers behind the closed doors of a court, the American people can speak -- and they will prevail in the end," the marriage advocate says.
In response to the court's ruling, more than 20 pro-family organizations met at the Family Research Council's headquarters in Washington, DC, to discuss proper strategy for passing marriage amendments both in Massachusetts and at the federal level.
