Posted on 07/30/2002 9:09:34 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
Due Process Is Dead in Massachusetts.
“It being the public policy of this Commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and the best interests of children, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts. Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent, nor shall it receive the benefits or incidents exclusive to marriage from the Commonwealth, its agencies, departments, authorities, commissions, offices, officials and political subdivisions. Nothing herein shall be construed to effect an impairment of a contract in existence as of the effective date of this amendment.”
For the last week, I have been reeling with images from the July 17th travesty in the Massachusetts state house, when a special constitutional convention met for the third time in as many months to consider a proposed amendment that would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Senate president Tom Birmingham (who is running a dwindling campaign for governor of this state) had said earlier in the week and again that morning that he was going to do “everything in my power to stop this mean-spirited and hateful issue from coming to a vote.” This time, he got someone else to do his dirty work: Brian P. Lees (R-Springfield), the senate minority leader, moved to adjourn the meeting before the amendment could be addressed. 137 members voted to adjourn; 53 voted not to adjourn. Fifty votes were required to carry the issue of the Amendment to the ballot—which obviously could have carried easily, leaving the question of what a marriage is—or is not—up to the voters of this state in 2004.
More than 130,000 voters signed the Protection of Marriage Amendment petition in the fall of 2001. 76,607 of those signatures were certified. 57,100 certified signatures were required in order for the petition to come before the constitutional convention. According to the Massachusetts Family Institute, 83% of Massachusetts voters polled agree that marriage is important to the family, and 60% support defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
On July 17th, I went to the state house to be present for (I presumed) an historic vote. Before I went into the State House, I stood for about a half hour with about sixty staff and volunteers for the Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage for a nearly silent rally. Some of us stood and chatted and others held up signs that said, “Let the People Vote for Marriage in 2004.” And most of us watched somewhat warily as homosexuals and lesbians harassed members of our group. At around 1:15, I went into the State House.
I couldn´t get near the gallery. The doors were closed until about 1:50, but there must have been 750 people in the house chamber area ahead of me, perhaps 250 pro-homosexual rights supporters to the rest of us who favor traditional values. The senators entered the chamber at 2:00 pm. At 2:17, they strolled out with smug smirks on their faces. Opponents of the amendment erupted into cheers, and the rest of us into boos and hisses. Almost immediately, there was a frenzy of sympathetic media interviews with lesbian members of the Massachusetts congress, and their supporters—and then the taunting and jeering began. The Marriage Amendment, for all intents and purposes, was dead. And we all knew it.
The only pro-marriage supporter I know of who made it onto the news that night was a black woman who took issue with a sign that pronounced, “We want OUR civil rights!” When she challenged that statement and was verbally assaulted, she lost her temper and was ushered out of the building by armed guards. The whole episode was filmed; what made it onto the news that evening was the woman being taken out, loud with rage, her little boys in tow. Some of us were standing outside the capitol afterward, pondering the whole mess as we waited for busses to take us back to the places where we had gathered for this momentous day. A homosexual came along and began reviling us. We were silent in response. He then sighted the black woman and got very in-your-face with her, his nose possibly a foot away from hers. He spoke in low, seething tones. We could not hear him, but her demeanor made it pretty obvious that he was being extremely unpleasant to her. The busses came along and the woman and her children crossed Beacon Street—and he walked beside her, puffing smoke into her face and muttering at her the entire time. None of us (including I, shamefully) did anything to try to stop him.
My own involvement with the Protection of Marriage Amendment began when I signed the petition at my local grocery store last fall. I asked for copies and carried them around with me to collect more signatures, rather surprised at how many people were willing to sign it. Very few I asked did not.
After the first constitutional convention met on May 8th of this year to discuss the Amendment, as required by the Massachusetts Constitution, and then closed without a vote, a friend who works for Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage called and asked if I would contact the voters in my town who had signed the petition, and ask them to contact our state senator and representative in support of the Amendment. I said yes, and began calling a few days later. Again, I was amazed at the responses: about a third of those I spoke to, while they had signed the petition, were reluctant to call Ms Walrath or Mr. Antonioni. They expressed concerns about voicing their opinions on such a “controversial” matter to their elected officials. The other two-thirds assured me that they would.
On June 19th, the date of the next special constitutional convention to consider the Marriage Amendment, I took a few hours of personal time from work and met my friend at the State House for the vote. When I arrived at the Boston Common, the meeting place for volunteers from the Mass Citizens for Marriage, I was surprised that there weren´t more people there, including, apparently, members of the opposition. I was told that my friend was already inside, so I hurried through the security area into the State House and went to the House gallery where she and her two little sons, aged two and five, were waiting. I sat down next to them.
It was about 1:15. The meeting was scheduled to begin at 2:00.
Although there was one kind guard in the gallery, as we waited for the vote, some of the other guards became verbally abusive. One woman guard in particular was unkind to an MCM staff member seated in front of me. The guard poked her shoulder to get attention, and poked it so hard that the woman winced and rubbed it as she turned to her. The guard spoke provokingly to her, threatening to remove her if she distributed any badges, and then said that she must remove the bag of badges or be ejected from the gallery. After a moment of discussion, a male guard joined them, the staff member said she would not distribute anything (she had not done so to that point) and the guards withdrew. [Most of us in the gallery were already wearing the badges, which said only, “Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage.”]
My friend seemed uncharacteristically quiet and when I asked why, told me of an incident that had just happened to a friend of hers as she was walking into the state house. A group of homosexuals and lesbians approached and began threatening her and the others with her, tormenting them with anti-religious slurs. The attempts met with no response. One of the activists then centered on her and tried more aggressively to get her to respond, verbally abusing her until she was in tears. When she said nothing, the activist spat, “I hope your children choke and die in front of you!”
And we´re called “mean-spirited and hateful?”
At the rally last Wednesday, homosexual and lesbian members of their media (mostly unidentified members, unless we asked them) milled among us asking questions and photographing us. While I was speaking with the brave man who exposed the Fistgate scandal some time back, a photographer from the Bay Windows ("New England's Largest Gay and Lesbian Newspaper") recognized him and began snapping photos of him and then of me, standing only about three or four feet away and zooming in with her lens. She took one after another, until he asked her to stop and said he really thought two was more than enough. She went on to someone else.
Before I entered the capitol building a few minutes later, I was approached by a young man and woman who identified themselves as members of the Homosexual Communist Media. He thrust a microphone into my face and asked why I was there. I did not speak well or smoothly to them, but I did speak: I told them I was there in support of the marriage Amendment. He asked why I supported it, and I told him, and also mentioned that more than 80% of voters polled in Massachusetts felt that [heterosexual] marriage was important to the family structure, and that 60% favored defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
The young man cut me off instantly, “Oh! So you´re in favor of mob rule!”
I frowned and said quietly, “That´s not mob rule—”
“Well, then, call it educated mob rule!”
I frowned again, waved him away and said, “I have nothing left to say to you.”
Before I left him, he insisted that I take a flier for the Homosexual Communist Media. I gave him one of ours, which he refused, but instead of throwing his away, I decided to read it. I´m glad I did. It began:
“The Homosexual Communist Media is an art collective based in Amsterdam. We have just founded a Boston faction, to begin subverting American morality and social culture...” (The italics are mine.)
Had I thought a little quicker, I would have said to him,
“You´re too late. It´s happened already.”
Here is some Biblical quotes I would like to see you use in the future.
For thus says the Lord, "Every tongue which rises against you in judgment you shall condemn" (Isa. 54:17). Jesus taught that human beings will condemn the wicked. "The men of Nineveh will rise in the judgment with this generation and condemn it" (Mat. 12:41). Jesus said, "For God so loved the world." Then two verses later He added, "but he who does not believe is condemned already" (John 3:18). By today’s Christian standard, no unbeliever would know that he is condemned, because most believers will not communicate this vital truth. John 3:16 is nice. John 3:18 is not nice.
Christ’s apostles asked Him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard [Your] saying?" (Mat. 15:12). What is the accepted Christian response today after an offense is taken? Quick, apologize! Ask for forgiveness! Tell them you are sorry. How did Jesus respond? He said to ignore the complaints of the unbelievers: "Let them alone. They are blind," (Mat. 15:14)
"you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. And then many will be offended" (Mat. 24:9-10)
Christ said that on whom that Rock "falls, it will grind him to powder" (Mat. 21:44; Luke 20:18). Even the Father said that the Son is the "rock of offense" (Isa. 8:14; Rom. 9:33; 1 Pet. 2:8). Offending unbelievers is Christlike in the deepest sense.
God, however, does not condemn those who "rebuke the wicked" (see Prov. 24:25).
Jesus warned of "the leaven of Herod" (Mark 8:15). When notified that "Herod wants to kill You," (Luke 13:31), Christ responded without respect, "Go, tell that fox, ‘I cast out demons’…" (Luke 13:32).
The especially harsh term hypocrite is used in the Gospels twenty-three times. Christ often insulted the scribes, Pharisees and lawyers. He even called the Pharisees blind guides (Mat. 23:16, 24) and sons of hell (Mat. 23:15). Jesus spoke unkind words unacceptable today. He said to Peter "Get behind me, Satan" (Mat. 16:23). He told the Pharisees "You are of your father the devil" (John 8:44), and made a whip and cleared "thieves" from the temple (Mat. 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46; John 2:14:15).
Gentiles (as symbols of the godless) and sodomites are called "dogs" in the Bible (Mat. 7:6; 15:26; Deut. 23:17-18; Ps. 22:16; 59:5-6; Phil. 3:2; Rev. 22:15). And Jesus was harsh (not only to the Pharisees, as some believers wrongly assume but) to all the unrepentant (see His use of "hypocrite"). Jesus instructs Christians to not "cast your pearls before swine" (Mat. 7:6). Yet the silly dilemma now is, "Who could Christ possibly have meant by that, for we are too loving, tolerant, polite and respectful to refer to any human being by that mean-spirited term."
In the King James Version, the seductive women among the people of God are worse than "whores" (Ezek. 16:33). That crude term appears in the Bible dozens of times. The men who use those women are "whoremongers" (1 Tim. 1:10; Heb. 13:4; Rev. 21:8; 22:15), which is the most raw term in the English language to describe promiscuous men. God describes other sinners in terms of filthy excrement (Isa. 64:6) and even worse (2 Ki. 18:27; Isa. 36:12). Sinners truly are repulsive, regardless of how men may try to sanitize them.
The Bible does not say, "Hate the sin, love the sinner." It says, "As a man thinks in his heart, so is he" (Prov. 23:7). And that God hates "all workers of iniquity" (Ps 5:5). "The Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man" (Ps 5:6). Also "the wicked and the one who loves violence [God] hates." (Ps 11:5). Further, "The face of the Lord is against those who do evil" (Ps 34:16). God "loves righteousness and hate[s] wickedness (Ps. 45:7).
There are six things "the Lord hates," including "a heart that devises wicked plans… a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren" (Prov. 6:16-19). And God reminds us "All their wickedness is in Gilgal, for there I hated them. Because of the evil of their deeds I will drive them from My house; I will love them no more" (Ho 9:13). As Moses wrote of God, "if you do not obey Me... My soul shall abhor you" (Lev. 26:27-30).
Even in the New Testament, Paul wrote, "Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil" (Rom. 12:9) introducing the concept of hypocritical love. What is hypocritical love? "Should you… love those who hate the Lord? Therefore the wrath of the Lord is upon you" (2 Chr. 19:2). Warning the wicked of the coming judgment is harsh, but is a necessary component of acceptable love. A love that is not hypocritical rebukes and condemns, and then points the way to God.
When people misunderstood Jesus He often made no effort to explain Himself. Quite to the contrary, He often purposely let His hearers misconstrue His words (John 2:18-22). Jesus let people walk away in unbelief without running after them. The Bible does not record Him as saying, "I’m sorry, did you misunderstand me?" He is the "stumbling block," and if men wanted to stumble, He let them. For those who want to hang themselves, He invites them (Rev. 22:11). Jesus made the rope available. He is that rope (Rom. 9:33).
Jesus was a man, not a girl. Christianity today has been emasculated. Men and women are different and they communicate differently. Women are softer and nicer than men, and thank God that they are. However, men are not supposed to be women.
Roman 1 gives us this : 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Jesus repeatedly taught men to judge rightly, insisting they "judge with righteous judgment" (John 7:24) and He praised a man who "rightly judged" (Luke 7:43). Paul shamed the Corinthian Christians because there was no one among them willing to "judge the smallest matters" (1 Cor. 6:2). As the Apostle wrote, "He who is spiritual judges all things" for "we have the mind of Christ" (1Cor. 2:15-16).
The notion that judgment is wrong is a ludicrous one. Should child-molesters escape condemnation? Should rapists be free from criticism? Should society refrain from judging those arrested for murder? Should we call evil good? Or would that be a judgment too?
To abhor evil, someone must first judge evil. God instructs men against "hypocrisy" commanding them to "abhor what is evil" (Rom. 12:9).
judge righteously" (Deut. 1:16-17; Lev. 19:15)? Moses appointed the head of one out of every ten households as a judge (Ex. 18:25; Deut. 1:15). Should Christians look down upon the entire book of Judges? Should America eliminate all judges, or should just the Christian judges resign? Should believers ignore Paul’s admonition? For he wrote:
"Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren?" (1Cor. 6:2-5).
Notice that Christians "will judge the world!" (1 Cor. 6:2). For Paul said, "if the world will be judged by you…" God is the Judge of all the world who will delegate that judgment to His people. Even spirit beings will submit to believers: "Do you not know that we shall judge angels?" Then and now, believers should "judge... according to My judgments" (Ezek. 44:24) as God said. The Almighty commits judgment into the hands of His obedient servants (Rev. 20:4, 1 Tim. 5:24). This teaching is ancient for as Enoch, the seventh from Adam, said, "the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints to execute judgment on all" (Jude 14-15).
Jesus too said, "The men of Nineveh will rise in the judgment with this generation and condemn it..." (Mat. 12:41). And as Solomon wrote, "jealously is a husband's fury; therefore, he will not spare [the adulterer] in the day of vengeance. He will accept no recompense nor will he be appeased..." (Prov. 6:34-35). God gives the responsibility for vengeance, condemnation and judgment to His servants for "every tongue which rises against you in judgment you shall condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord…" (Isa. 54:17).
Today, many believers are effectively saying, "Lord, thanks but no thanks. I’ll pass on that judgment stuff." But Paul responds, "Start judging now, because you will need the practice" (1Cor. 6:2-5). Remember, "he who is spiritual judges all things. For... we have the mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:15-16). And God will reward those who judge, and do the hard work: "Those who rebuke the wicked will have delight, and a good blessing will come upon them." (Prov. 24:25).
Jesus said, "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
Are you being facetious or just plain dumb?
I said THE STATE, not "your neighbors."
I know you know what that means.
This is a very troubling statement. The state is not all powerful. It is instituted to preserve rights. It's power is that, no more.
It certainly would be fair in taxpayer terms, unlike the current situation which unfairly taxes gays to finace heterosexual marriage benefits etc. As far as "sin" is concerned, that is a theological concept which has no place in a discussion of civil matters.
In the imortal words of Ray in Ghostbusters, "You never studied." You are truly ignorant about individual rights and the power of the the state. Seriously, go back and read the Declaration of Independence. What does it say government is for?
God has place in everything and you will not shove us out the door without a fight.
If marriage is "folderol" now, it's already "insignificant" right?
This is a first. I've never seen marriage defined as useless before. Wow.
My statement is clear. The folderol is not marriage, but the quibbling regarding it.
What is the state but other people (ie. your neighbors)?
So, again, I ask, you have to get the permission of your neighbors to marry?
I'm not trying to shove you anywhere. Besides, civil matters dictated by particular religious views are pretty much already a thing of the past, which is as it should be.
Really? Was the Third Reich God's creation?
How about the Politburo?
Perhaps they were simply the creation of some seriously disturbed individuals.
It is a crying shame I actually had to spell it out. I assumed you were smart enough to figure it out on your own. I know better now.
Tell me, how old are you? Have you ever applied for a marriage license?
Because they're queer?
Same goes with God's creation of me. I am not perfect but rather often pervert God's purposes of me. That is why I need forgiveness and a Savior.
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.