http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20031118.shtml Marriage Redefined
Cal Thomas (archive)
November 18, 2003 | Print | Send
It is not as if the ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court permitting the "marriage" of same sex couples came as a surprise. If Massachusetts doesn't care about the sexual practices of some of its politicians, why should it care about what some of its lesser citizens do?
The 4-3 ruling, which orders the state legislature to write a law permitting arrangements similar to what the Vermont Supreme Court approved in 1999 when it allowed "civil unions" the same benefits as marriage, is further evidence that G.K. Chesterton's warning has come true: "The danger when men stop believing in God is not that they'll believe in nothing, but that they'll believe in anything."
Marriage was not invented by the postal service as a convenient way to deliver the mail. It was established by God as the best arrangement for fallen humanity to organize and protect itself and create and rear children. Even secular sociologists have produced studies showing children need a mother and a father in the home.
The first mention of marriage is in Genesis 2:24: ".a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling, which will be used by gay rights groups to lobby for striking down all laws limiting marriage to heterosexuals, is just the latest example of a society that has abandoned any and all authority outside of itself.
History, logic, theology and even the dictionary have defined marriage as: "the mutual relation of husband and wife; wedlock; the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family" (Merriam-Webster); or "a legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife" (Cambridge).
These classic examples are being updated to reflect the mood of the times. The online Encarta dictionary defines marriage as a "legal relationship between spouses; a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners." That's a big difference.
What is happening in our culture is an unraveling of all we once considered normal. Anyone who now appeals to virtue, values, ethics or (heaven forbid!) religious faith is labeled an enemy of progress, an intolerant bigot, a homophobe and a "Neanderthal." There is no debate and no discussion. By definition, anyone who opposes "progress" in casting off the chains of religious restrictions on human behavior - which were once considered necessary for the promotion of the general welfare - is a fundamentalist fool, part of a past that brought us witch trials, slavery and back-alley abortions.
But the problem is deeper than the courts. Some of the people who most loudly proclaim the standards by which they want all of us to live have difficulty themselves living up to those standards. A culture is made up of people, but if large numbers of them no longer "hunger and thirst after righteousness" (to invoke a biblical metaphor), neither will their government.
The constitutional way out of this in Massachusetts and in Washington is an amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Whether sufficient numbers of politicians have the courage to vote for such an amendment in the face of stiff opposition from gay rights advocates and much of the media will soon be determined.
What is most disturbing about this latest affront to tradition and biblical wisdom is that those who would undermine the old have nothing new to offer in its place. It is like morally corrupt ancient Israel when there was no king "and everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25).
Is that the way we should live? Do we get to vote? Not if the courts play God. Voters can decide in the next election if they want to continue in this direction, or pull the country back from the precipice. Marriage defined should be the social-issue centerpiece of the coming campaign.
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1231727.html Pro-Family Groups Say Mass. Ruling Undermines Marriage
Robert B. Bluey
Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) - Conservative and pro-family leaders expressed outrage and warned about the dangers of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision Tuesday granting same-sex couples the right to marry.
Even though the court declined to issue marriage licenses to the seven same-sex couples that sued, the ruling still enraged cultural conservatives who said they feared it would undermine the meaning of traditional marriage.
"The homosexual activist movement, which has achieved virtually every goal and objective it set out to accomplish more than 50 years ago, is now closer than it has ever been to administering a devastating and potentially fatal blow to the traditional family," said James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family.
Dobson said it was unbelievable that homosexuals have been able to achieve their objectives. Just a few years ago, he said, same-sex marriage was only a pipe dream, but now, "it has become a tidal wave that is sweeping around the globe."
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said the Massachusetts court fit into the pattern of a "tyrannical judiciary" that sought to redefine marriage "to the point of extinction." He also accused the justices of carrying out a "pro-homosexual agenda."
Having suffered two major defeats in the legal arena this year - the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed sodomy laws in June - pro-family groups like the Family Research Council vowed to turn their attention to legislatures.
Constitutional amendments - both at the state and national level - would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Such measures have already been introduced in Massachusetts and the U.S. Congress.
"If we do not amend the Massachusetts state constitution so that it explicitly protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and if we do not amend the U.S. Constitution with a federal marriage amendment that will protect marriage on the federal level, we will lose marriage in this nation," Perkins said.
The debate over homosexual marriage in Massachusetts has been brewing for several years. Republican Gov. Mitt Romney has said he believes marriage should be between one man and one woman, and Democrat House Speaker Tom Finneran supports the constitutional amendment.
Last year, Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage lobbied for a voter referendum asking the citizens about the definition of marriage. The group's attorney, J. Edward Pawlick, wasn't able to get the referendum on the ballot after a fight with the Legislature and the Supreme Judicial Court.
"The arrogance of these lawyers is without bounds," Pawlick said of the four justices who sided with the same-sex couples. "They know that the citizens are against gay marriage, and the only way it will happen is to force it upon them. We are witnessing the collapse of a once-great society, not from an invading army but from decay within."
On the national level, proponents of traditional marriage had anticipated the possibility of a decision similar to the one issued Tuesday. More than 25 pro-family groups staged Marriage Protection Week last month, hoping to galvanize support for their position.
Groups like the Alliance for Marriage and the Southeastern Legal Foundation called on federal lawmakers to amend the U.S. Constitution to clarify the definition of marriage.
"What we will see now is a veritable rush to the courthouses of various states by gay partners and the gay lobby to seek constitutional rights' status for gay marriage," said L. Lynn Hogue, chairman of the foundation's legal advisory board. "A federal constitutional amendment is the best way to ensure against a hodge-podge of state laws."
Lawmakers also called for action Tuesday. U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said the court's decision leaves Congress little choice but to enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage.
"On an issue as fundamental as marriage, it is the job of the American people, through their legislators, to decide - not the Massachusetts courts," Cornyn said.
U.S. Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.) said the ruling was yet another attack on American values. He said it would "only further the resolve of those of us who seek to protect the sanctity of marriage."
Meanwhile, homosexual activist groups hailed the court's decision. Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, said the ruling gives same-sex couples the same protections and rights as other citizens.
"This is about whether gay and lesbian couples in long-term, committed relationships will be afforded the benefits, rights and protections afforded other citizens to best care for their partners and children," Birch said. "This is good for gay couples, and it is good for America."
Birch said the ruling also means that homosexual partners will be able to visit each other in hospitals, make health care and financial decisions for each other, file joint tax returns and be able to take advantage of tax laws for married couples.
See Related Stories:
Mass. Decision Encourages Federal Marriage Amendment (Nov. 19, 2003)
Same-Sex Ruling Causes Democratic 'Heartburn,' Says Political Analyst (Nov. 19, 2003)
See Earlier Story:
Massachusetts Court Says OK to Same-Sex Marriage (Nov. 18, 2003)
Listen to audio for this story.
=== "The danger when men stop believing in God is not that they'll believe in nothing, but that they'll believe in anything."
Hear hear.