Replies

I'm one pissed-off and humiliated Massachusetts resident. Here's the letter I just wrote to my state "representative":

Dear Representative Eldridge,

I am writing to you as a concerned life-long Massachusetts citizen and a voting constituent of yours.

We have spoken in the past on this subject, immediately following the original SJC decision in November, and I understand your position to be in favor of both the November ruling and by extension, this recent ruling mandating full gay marriage. I also understand that you would be opposed (per a published Boston Globe survey) to a Constitutional amendment clarifying the meaning of marriage as being between one man and one woman. (Please do correct me if I am mischaracterizing your position on these issues).

That having been said, I must express my deep dissatisfaction and disappointment with both the court's decision and our legislature's reaction to it, yourself included. What the SJC did is an insult and an affront to all Massachusetts citizens and our elected representatives. You, as an elected representative, ought to be outraged at this usurpation of legislative power by unelected, unaccountable judges, whether or not you agree with the concept of gay marriage. I am utterly outraged and offended by this activist court - for the first time in my life, I am literally ashamed and embarrassed to be a Massachusetts citizen.

If you fail to use your position as an elected representative and do not stop and reverse this sort of blatant judicial activism, then you are not doing your job.

Now, regarding the substance of the issue itself, I am completely opposed to the counterfeit and fraudulent notion of homosexual "marriage". There is no such thing, there can be no such thing, and judicial fiat cannot transform fiction into fact. Yes, the institution of marriage in this country is on shaky ground, but the answer cannot be to destroy it completely. And introducing the concept of homosexual marriage most certain DOES destroy it, because it renders the institution meaningless. If a word can have any meaning that any individual wants to ascribe to it based on matters of personal choice, than the word has no real meaning. We ought to be pursuing ways to reinforce marriage and reaffirm the importance of the traditional family as this is where the best interests of our children, and thus our future, lies.

After this ruling, how much longer will it be before the gay agenda begins forcing its way in to our public schools? I know it will happen; you know it will happen. I will not accept it - will you?

I have also come to the conclusion that the gay agenda is NOT about gaining legal protections and civil rights. Clearly, that isn't good enough. The gay community obviously wants to force acceptance of their lifestyle onto the rest of the population by commanding us to accept their relationships as equivalent to the union of a man and a woman - the cornerstone of civilized human culture. I reject this forced acceptance, and a judicial diktat will not change my mind. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

In fact, this militant imposition of the gay agenda is polarizing me in the opposite direction. Prior to all this, I had no issue with gays. I am not a religious person and do not attend any church, so I am not basing my position on any religious prejudices. I used to be generally in favor of civil union legislation, but now that I've seen the depth and breadth of the true gay agenda, I will no longer even support civil unions. Enough is enough; this has gone too far. Simply put, I am indignant and have been driven to action.

If I have misunderstood your position on these SJC rulings and the issue of gay "marriage", please correct me. Otherwise, know that I will use every extent of my personal and social life to communicate with friends, family, and neighbors on this issue to see that next time, we elect someone who truly represents our values and interests.