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.”
Does it bother you that Thomas Jefferson proposed the death sentence for sodomists? Obviously so. I'll bet it bothers you even more that his contemporaries never blinked an eye over this minor point in his proposed Virginia penal statutes. It's in the Federalist Papers; check it out. Perversion and wickedness may be acceptable to you, but they were not acceptable to those who founded our great country. Oh, and not one of them were Muslims. Your Muslim smokescreen is just that.
And yet, though the State in 33 A.D. was extremely corrupt, the church's evangelism was extremely effective. So, in a mind formed by the New Testament, the propogation of the Gospel is not hindered by the corruption of the State.
More people now listen to the government than the church as to what is right and wrong.
Which is a comment on the church. Again, a biblical mind would think "Reform the church" instead of "Improve the government".
Are Christians to have nothing to say about abortion.
Yes, we should say about it what God said: "Thou shalt not kill".
Or a government that grows increasingly Messianic and openly corrupt with every passing year?
Yes: "Jesus is Lord".
Or an educational system that teaches untruths?
Yes: "that is not true."
Or a culture that has become coarse and decayed?
Yes, we should say what the gospel says: "You have no hope for renewal except by personal repentance and faith in Jesus Christ."
Which is what I am arguing, and you are not.
No, it's your assertion, you have to prove it. Not me.
Perversion and wickedness may be acceptable to you, but they were not acceptable to those who founded our great country.
I just don't think it is OK to kill people for doing it in any other way than with the lights off in the missionary position.
You are a looney.
No, it's your assertion, you have to prove it. Not me.
I already led you to water, but drinking it is your job.
You are a looney.
Since I was quoting one of out most revered founding fathers, I'll take that as a compliment. I sincerely hope you don't believe that the celebration of perversion and hatred of the traditional family are acceptable.
I celebrate perversion and hate traditional families because I don't want to kill all the people who don't copulate in the dark in the missionary position?
Kind of obsessed with that missionary position, aren't you.
Thanks for your compliments.
WRT the homosexual agenda, libertarians often resort to the argument that, "whatever two consenting adults want to do in the privacy of their homes should be no business of the state." In a vacuum, this is true. With respect to the homosexual agenda in particular, and in the definition of family in general, this argument has no place. The state is very much involved for the following reasons:
Shalom.
It's so much deeper than that, dude... The ramifications, I mean... Legal and economical... The state certainly would have a vested interest in the ramifications.
I've accused you of nothing. I asked a question to which you apparently have no answer.
People will either believe in the Truth individually or they will not. It is up to each of us.
If they don't believe your "truth" then what?
How do you go about defining the limitations of human interaction?
You are furious that I would insist on a moral standard by which to govern.
I don't even know what your moral standard is so I'm hardly in a position to object to it.
Murder, rape, kidnapping, thievery, persecution - we consider these things to be objective moral wrongs and we punish them.
As we should. Those acts violate rights. But, we don't have Christianity to thank for enlightening us to that truth. Those acts were considered wrong long before Christianity existed.
If I may be so bold, you would not want to live in a secular society.
I'd like to live in a society that respects rights. The religious beliefs to which the people in that society adhere don't concern me, nor are they any business of mine.
A secular society has no basis whatsoever for the dignity of man.
Sure it does.
Any rights a person has in a secular society are given them by the state.
Why? Because you say so? I could argue the same is true for a theistic society. But, that really doesn't get us anywhere. It doesn't define the limitations of human interaction. Nor does it define the purpose of government.
And all the lame discussions in the world by atheists about the "rights of man" does not change the fact that they have nothing to call upon higher than themselves.
Suppose people have different theistic beliefs, or atheistic beliefs. How do people go about defining the limitations of human interaction?
A secular society would end in tyranny, either by the state or by man. It always has and it always will.
Since the dawn of man no society which advances religion via the force of government has ever produced freedom and prosperity. They've all ended in tyranny. There has been mass torture and murder of millions at the hands of religious fanatics for millenia. To what do you attribute that? Were they practicing the wrong religion?
Perhaps it was just a fundamental disregard for rights.
If they don't believe, they don't. That's it. It's not the government's place to preach salvation. I am unsure why you think I believe differently. Why should I want to use the coercive power of the state to force conversions? Of what possible use could that be? My only point is that the state should not recognize homosexual marriage, because it is a contradiction in terms.
Rights are given by God. Period. Rights are not given by the state. They are secured by the state. In a theistic society, this fact is not instilled (it exists already), but rather simply recognized.
I repeat, a secularist has no basis whatsoever for the rights of man. The secular state believes that rights come from government because they cannot come from God, as the secularist does not believe in God. They have only power and no eternal accountability. Secular societies will always end in tyranny.
Because you said, "...Government is indeed God's creation. The Scriptures are very clear."
For the sake of argument let's suppose government is indeed God's creation. Did you have a point to make?
While we're on the subject of government and God, exactly which god is government a creation of? Is government a creation of Osiris? How about Ishtar? Maybe it's Isis.
Government is a creation of my god! No, it's a creation of mine! No, mine!
Do you see the problem here?
My only point is that the state should not recognize homosexual marriage, because it is a contradiction in terms.
The state ought not be involved in marriage whatsoever just as it should not tell you how to raise your family or what religion to practice.
Rights are given by God.
Where did God list our rights?
Rights are not given by the state.
We're in agreement there.
...a secularist has no basis whatsoever for the rights of man.
Do atheists have rights? Or, do rights belong only to theists?
The secular state believes that rights come from government because they cannot come from God, as the secularist does not believe in God.
When you say "secular state" are you referring to a state which enforces secularism? Or, are you referring to a state which abstains from forcing participation in religion?
Secular societies will always end in tyranny.
Why?
No theocracy has ever facilitated freedom and prosperity. Why not? What's the common denominator?
In any case, government is a creation of the true God of the Bible. This God exists and knows your name. And if I may be so bold, you are well aware that He exists and that He will hold you accountable.
You claim that rights are not given by the state, yet you also claim that they are not given by God. I am afraid that you cannot have your cake and eat it to here. Either our rights are eternal (and therefore come from an eternal source), or you will have to make something up that is temporal, in which case our rights are not eternal.
Secularists have nothing eternal to call upon. Therefore there is nothing to stop the government from taking away my rights, since they believe that nothing eternal will hold them accountable. A secular state, whether it be left-wing or right-wing, will end in tyranny.
Which God is the true God and why is it important that government honors it? Is Osiris the true God? How about Isis? Maybe it's Ishtar.
...government is a creation of the true God of the Bible.
If government was a creation of God then government would precede man, would it not? One could argue that the cosmos is a creation of God, yet God didn't create man first and then the cosmos second.
Government emerged after man and at the hand of man. And since God gave man the gift of free will man can choose to have government or not to have government. If government was a creation of God, like the cosmos, then man wouldn't have that choice.
Why do men form governments? What is the purpose of government?
...you also claim that they [rights] are not given by God.
I made no such claim. I asked you a series of questions which you haven't answered. If God is the origin of rights then where did he list them? How did God inform us of our rights?
Furthermore, you said, "...a secularist has no basis whatsoever for the rights of man."
Do atheists have rights? Or, do rights belong only to theists? Suppose somebody believes rights come from Mother Nature. Are they not entitled to the same rights as you?
Secularists have nothing eternal to call upon. Therefore there is nothing to stop the government from taking away my rights, since they believe that nothing eternal will hold them accountable.
Suppose you claim that your rights come from God. Will that stop the state from violating your rights?
A secular state, whether it be left-wing or right-wing, will end in tyranny.
You keep referring to a secular state. When you say "secular state" are you referring to a state which enforces secularism? Or, are you referring to a state which abstains from forcing participation in religion?
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.