Homosexual 'Marriage': a Delay in Massachusetts, a Deluge in San Francisco
by Bill Fancher and Jody Brown
February 13, 2004
(AgapePress) - After two days of debate on the legalization of same-sex "marriage," the Massachusetts legislature has decided to recess for a month without making a decision.
While in a special constitutional convention session, the Bay State legislature rejected four efforts at passing an amendment in response to court-ordered legalization of homosexual marriage. The lawmakers are schedule to reconvene on March 11 to again debate an amendment that would have to survive a series of legislative votes before appearing on a state ballot in November 2006.
Ray McNulty, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Family Institute, is upset. "What we are committed to doing between now and March 11 is to let the voters of Massachusetts know how certain of their legislators voted on the issue to essentially prevent the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment from coming before the electorate in Massachusetts in 2006," he says.
Among those legislators McNulty's group will be discussing are state representatives Philip Travis and Byron Rushing, both of whom spoke from the floor of the state house on Thursday. Travis proposed an amendment that would have defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman without either requiring or prohibiting civil unions. He said homosexual marriage and behavior are condemned in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
"The Holy Bible, the Old and New Testaments, the Koran, and the Torah -- which are the books of the holy peoples of those religions -- define that union as being unacceptable," he said. "The major religions of this world take exception to that activity."
Travis added that it is ludicrous to suggest that there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. "It has never been a debate in these United States except for the last 20 years," the legislator said. "This is a new phenomenon brought into Massachusetts by a liberal mind that says 'this is a right.' This is a change in nature.
"We are changing a mindset in nature that has existed for 4,000 years -- and making Massachusetts the birthplace not of liberties but the birthplace of the approval of marriage of two people of the same sex."
But Representative Rushing noted that some churches believe same-sex unions are morally acceptable. "There are religious organizations -- they are not huge, but they are here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts -- that believe that it is fine for same-sex couples to be married in a sacred union blessed by God and go up and take communion and eat the body and blood of Jesus," he said.
According to Rushing, churches can believe what they wish about marriage, saying "we in no way denigrate religious understandings of marriage by taking on our responsibility of continuing to define civil marriage."
Massachusetts Family Institute's McNulty says the presiding officer in the Massachusetts legislature, whose own amendment was rejected, is the villain behind nothing being decided thus far. He says Senate president Robert Travaligni hijacked the final hours of the session and prevented crucial votes on a compromise.
The Family Research Council, a Washington, DC-based pro-family group that has been working hard in Massachusetts in support of traditional marriage, says "anti-marriage" legislators used stall tactics to prevent a vote and basically waste time until the mandatory midnight adjournment arrived. According to FRC, one of those legislators, Senator Brian Joyce, was at one point reading from the newspaper.
America's 'Gay' Capital
While many Massachusetts legislators seemed content to put off the issue of homosexual marriage until another day, politicians in San Francisco were not. In fact, that city's mayor, many city officials, and even one state representative orchestrated events on Thursday that led to the issuance of nearly 100 marriages licenses to homosexual couples -- in direct defiance of the state's Defense of Marriage Act.
Following Mayor Gavin Newsom's order on Tuesday that the county accept marriage applications from homosexual partners, the clerk's office issued 95 marriage licenses to same-sex couples -- 87 of whom took their vows on the spot. Officiating at some of the ceremonies were San Francisco Assessor Mabel Teng, four of her deputies, and pro-homosexual legislator Assemblyman Mark Leno, a Democrat from San Francisco.
The validity of those licenses is in question because the State of California, which passed its DOMA in March 2000, recognizes marriage only as the union of one man and one woman.
Apparently the County of San Francisco, which granted those licenses to the homosexual couples, also acknowledges they might have a long court fight ahead of them regarding the licenses' legality. A disclaimer to the marriage applications states that "marriage of lesbian and gay couples may not be recognized as valid by any jurisdiction other than San Francisco, and may not be recognized as valid by any employer."
But as Associated Press points out, the symbolism of the same-sex marriage licenses was evident, calling it "an act of political and legal defiance aimed at challenging California's ban on same-sex marriages." AP also quotes one lesbian who had just "married" her partner of 14 years, saying "even people who are anti-gay marriage might shift their thinking now and realize it's most harmful to take something away when someone already has it."
Among those who has no plan to shift their thinking is the Campaign for California Families, a California-based pro-family group that has battled pro-homosexual legislation at the state level for years. CCF has filed a lawsuit arguing that the city has no authority to marry homosexual couples. Liberty Counsel filed the lawsuit on behalf of CCF.
"The court will void this publicity stunt," say Mat Staver, president of Liberty Counsel. "Mayor [Gavin] Newsom has no more right to do what he is doing than he does to secede the State of California from the union. Those who received the marriage licenses need to know that they are worthless."
CCF and Liberty Counsel are seeking a temporary restraining order that would instruct the city not to issue any more marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Staver says he is confident the licenses will be "invalidated" once a judge is able to issue that order.
In Washington, Colorado Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave points to events in both Massachusetts and California as blatant disregard for the rule of law.
"Our nation has a set of activist judges in Massachusetts and a rogue mayor in San Francisco. It is evident that they will openly aid and abet the homosexual lobby," she says. "These events over the last week clearly show that gay activists will skirt the law to create a new privilege that has never existed in this country."
Musgrave is the lead sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, legislation that is currently before the U.S. House of Representatives. Similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate. "It is time to let the people decide if marriage is between a man and a woman and pass this amendment," Musgrave says.
Associated Press contributed to this story.
