Posted on 11/03/2006 8:59:40 AM PST by Drew McKissick
This Election Day, voters in eight states will go to the polls and decide whether or not to give the traditional definition of marriage, the union of one man and one woman, the protection of an amendment to their state constitutions. Amendments that are designed to protect traditional marriage from being redefined by radical state and federal judges, and to make sure that voters have a chance to be heard on this fundamental issue.
How has it come to this? Why do voters have to vote on amendments to state constitutions to maintain the definition of something that has been settled in western civilization for thousands of years – long before our constitutions and laws were written. Simply put, the answer is judges.
Activist judges in several states have taken it upon themselves to redefine – or demand that democratically elected legislators redefine – the historical and commonly understood meaning of marriage. All without any input from voters.
A few years ago, four out of seven judges on Massachusetts’ Supreme Court redefined marriage in that state and then ordered their state’s legislature to comply. Just last week the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered that state’s legislature to pass legislation that would either allow gay marriage outright or give all the rights and benefits of marriage under a name other than “marriage”.
For decades, liberal activists have used the judiciary to redefine basic cultural institutions because they know they are unlikely to achieve their goals if voters have a say in the matter. By gaining the legalization of gay marriages in one state, they will seek to use the federal judiciary to force other states to officially recognize such unions, whether those states allows gay marriage under their own laws or not.
The risk is very real. Due to a quirk in the Massachusetts state constitution, gays from outside that state are not allowed to marry there if their home states don’t allow such marriages as well. Currently none do. But thanks to New Jersey, this will change in 2007. Will the rest of the country allow itself to be dictated to by judges from other states?
The oldest and most fundamental institution of society is the family, and the basis of the family is marriage. Over the last several decades, failed marriages, no-fault divorce laws and out of wedlock births have wrecked enough damage on the family, and by extension, society in general. It hardly seems logical that we should sit by and watch judges inflict further, more fundamental damage.
To suggest that we can suddenly change the definition of marriage and ignore thousands of years of human history without the possibility of negative consequences is to deny reality. The ripple effect across our legal system involving such issues as insurance, inheritance, child custody, property, etc. would be incredible. It would hit our court system like a tsunami and please no one but the trial lawyers.
Despite some of the rhetoric you may have heard, this amendment is not a restriction on anyone’s rights. It is simply a way to codify in our state constitutions the marriage laws we already have on our books, thereby giving them more protection from activist judges and making them more difficult to change without voter approval.
While a constitution should only be amended for the most important of reasons, the protection of the definition of marriage is such a reason. If we allow the judiciary to rewrite our laws, redefine our families and restructure our society without so much as a vote of the people, then we no longer have a democratic form of government. Approving such an amendment takes the issue away from the courts and puts it squarely where it belongs – with the people.
Over the past several years, voters in states all across our country have weighed in on the definition of marriage, and the result has been a unanimous and resounding verdict. In each case, voters approved state amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and put the issue beyond the reach of activist judges.
This Election Day, voters in eight states will be faced with the same question. They should be mindful that if they don’t settle the issue, they risk having judges do it for them.
And the last thing we want is liberal activist judges deciding what is a legitimate marriage and what is not.
The point about the definition of marriage being well-understood for thousands of years is one I have been trying to make. If we allow judges to re-define "marriage", what else are we going to let them re-define. In today's society, it seems that "sex", "parent", "marriage" , and the ever-popular "is" are all up for grabs. I shudder to think what is next.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
You forgot the Church. At least, traditionally sound Churches.
Well, your point is well-taken, but I fail to see the rush to pass on to the other and lose sight of what some are attempting to create now.
Their are cancerous elements of our society that wish to completely remove child-conceptulaizing and rearing from the definition of marriage.
Perhaps the effects won't be that drastic this generation, but the next generation, raised in an age without a societal expectation of parenthood after marrriage, is going to have a drastically changed outlook on the meaning of family.
The myopic buffoons on the left blow this off (and as with so many of their lacking ideologies) and completely miss the long-term consequences or just outright ignore that they exist. We all know that they do. We've already seen the effects of unilateral divorce and allowing and accepting the birth of children outside of wedlock.
This is NOT a small issue. This isn't just about gay "marriage." This is about who we are as a society and our most essential societal structure: the family unit.
I'm the minority in that I'm a 20-something who has had gay roommates, who has been to gay clubs and seen that culture, and I'm vehemently opposed to gay marriage. Parents are utterly failing to instruct their kids not only on this matter but the long-term importance of family. It's no small matter. In the age of "Me-ism," I don't know how much instruction would curb the hedonistic culture we have, but my kids are going to hear it.
Bravo!
You hit it out of the park!
WIll attempt some pinging later; if you don't get to this one I will.
Far too many judges have become dangerous as they have broken laws, violated their oath of office, and invaded ever area of our lives - including giving a pass to dangerous pedophiles and prohibiting a parent from listening in on the conversation of her child with someone she met on the Internet.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Do you have any direct links to further my education?
Not to mentions parents having to go to court to protect their rights to monitor what their children see and are exposed to in the public schools!
There is, amazingly enough, still a communist party here in the US. We defeated them twice, and they are still operating here. Incredible!
Doesn't DOMA forbid this?
************
Let everyone learn from our wretched example here in Massachusetts.
Wonnderful, thoughtful, important post.
I hate to see judges define marriage. The time to act is now. We still can pass amendments in the states and work to elect judges or the governors/presidents who appoint judges who won't go along with this. Once we have nationwide homosexual marriage, if that happens, it will be too late to ever turn back the tide. And then you will see polygamy and group marriage and God knows what else once we have a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. What homosexual marriage really is, is breaking down a barrier that you can change the definition of marriage. Further changes will come.
Excellent post. I fear you are correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.