States to Massachusetts Court: I don't think so!

February 9, 2004

True lunacy has broken out in Massachusetts. The State Judicial Supreme Court of has declared: civil unions are not enough - this state must allow gay marriage. In doing so the court has lurched to the farthest extreme any set of justices has ever dared to go. At the same time the implications are alarming average families and perhaps waking a voting public like never before.

But a good question to ask is - why? Why would the court say that "marriage" itself must be the bar that is set?

In my mind the matter of civil unions for gay couples is something that seems far less "sanctified" and in terms of legal options for groups of people - the president is probably right on this - it should be a matter for each state to decide. In all actuality people have been able to arrange "civil unions" for years to be able to determine property issues, custody rights, financial arrangements etc. How many of us know of a family who has added a relative's name to a dying person's bank records, or acquired "power of attorney" or "guardian" status for people who are in need of additional legal or emotional support? While these don't fully meet the measure of what most civil union laws allow - my point is simple. With attorneys in tow, anyone can arrange almost anything in terms of a civil agreement as to how one's property, finances, even hospital visitation, or inheritance is to be allocated. Hence "civil unions" have always existed.

So why does the court in Massachusetts insist on "marriage" for gay couples?

Though the activists will never say it - the true purpose is to gain "sanctity" for immoral sexual behavior. There is a guilty conscience among people who participate in homosexual activities. In America there is a collective guilty conscience nationwide about the amount of such behavior that continues to be encouraged.

The activists will tell you that the reason for the guilt is because of the collective prejudice shown in the legal system, and among people who disagree with the morality of homosexual behavior. They will tell you that a provincial society has caused their great inner pain for not allowing them to act out in any way they see fit.

This is absurd! No one is monitoring what anybody does behind their bedroom doors. Nor do I believe that constitutionally anybody should be. Yet despite the fact that no one is - the guilt remains. Thus the need for "sanctification".

Though few of the homosexual people I know are actively pursuing a meaningful life of faith or attend church there still lives this desire for their place of worship to not be allowed to criticize homosexual behavior. Hence when they hear from a pastor that the Bible says that there are many forms of sinful sexual behavior and homosexuality is only one among them - they become defensive. It is not unlike the man who is secretly viewing pornography, or a wife who is having a secret affair. Folks who are engaged in immoral choices have little tolerance for hearing about how their choices are indeed immoral.

Ah, but if a state were to give "sanctity" to an otherwise "immoral" activity then there is no need to worry about what that church says anymore. In fact - if the right hate-crime laws are passed then maybe...just perhaps...we can shut down those voices who say such things all together.

The presidential candidates have been watching the Massachusetts case.

Leading democratic frontrunner John Kerry said yesterday, "I believe and have fought for the principle that we should protect the fundamental rights of gay and lesbian couples." And it should come as no surprise that John Kerry is the "favored son" of his home state that is strongly advancing the gay marriage march.

President George W. Bush responded, "Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage, and if necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, (and) codify that."

To date, states have been responding to the potential reality of Massachusetts goal of having gay marriages occurring by mid-May. In this past week Ohio passed the strongest ban on gay marriage by any state. And in recent days the state of Illinois has seen three different measures introduced into the state legislature to strengthen traditional marriage. Rick Garcia, a leading gay activist in Illinois responded by calling those who introduced such measures as "bigots".

For many Americans the idea of a Constitutional amendment defining marriage is the only sure-fire protection against the ever growing pressure for at least one state somewhere to codify homosexual marriage. And the numbers seem favorable for this to happen. 38 states are required for a constitutional amendment. 38 states have already defined marriage in their state as involving one man and one woman. 14 states have already introduced legislation to create a constitutional amendment protecting marriage.

No doubt this will be an issue in the 2004 elections and Americans will remember that John Kerry is Massachusetts very own while President Bush believes strongly in the value of traditional marriage.

The question is - will you?

Kevin McCullough