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.”
If you want to understand the rights that God has given us I would suggest starting with the Ten Commandments in Exodus Chapter 20. The rights include but are not limited to: life, property, commerce, dignity, etc.
These rights concern all men. Atheists, pagans, and unbelievers are still made in the image of God. Nothing can change that. They have of course perverted their purpose, but they remain a creation of God in His likeness and image. Man is not an animal who got lucky through evolutionary process. We are infinitely higher than the animals. That is where we receive our dignity.
Government exists (and I am merely parroting Scripture here) primarily to enforce justice and the law. It is to be an instrument of justice against those who do evil. God gives government power to do this. Those who serve in government are actually called "ministers", and are allowed by God to function. Because government is run by sinful men it will always be imperfect until Christ returns.
Government remains accountable to God always.
The "God" I am constantly referring to is Jehovah, the God of the Old and New Testament. You are well aware of this.
I made no such claim.
You are correct. I misread your statement. I apologize.
You mean man didn't need government until he developed the faculty of reason?
God instituted law, and thus government, after the flood of Noah.
Human beings predate the mythical flood by tens of thousands of years.
God commanded that anyone who kills another must die.
That may be true. But, it's really a red herring.
If you want to understand the rights that God has given us I would suggest starting with the Ten Commandments in Exodus Chapter 20. The rights include but are not limited to: life, property, commerce, dignity, etc.
Human beings predate Christianity and the Bible by tens of thousands of years. Are you saying that rights didn't exist, or that people didn't understand the concept of rights, until the Bible came along?
How did people know theft and murder were wrong all those years before the Bible?
The 10 Commandments list only a few things. There are an infinite number of rights. It's impossible to list them all. How do we go about determining the rest of our rights?
The 1st Commandment states that no one may worship a god other than the god of the Bible. Don't people have the right to worship whichever god they choose?
Atheists, pagans, and unbelievers are still made in the image of God. Nothing can change that. They have of course perverted their purpose, but they remain a creation of God in His likeness and image.
All of that may be true. But, again, you're trying to float another red herring.
Man is not an animal who got lucky through evolutionary process. We are infinitely higher than the animals. That is where we receive our dignity.
What differentiates man from animal?
Government exists...primarily to enforce justice and the law.
I'd tend to agree. How do you define justice and law? What purpose do they serve? What are their limitations?
You said primarily. What does government exist for secondarily?
It is to be an instrument of justice against those who do evil.
Define evil.
The "God" I am constantly referring to is Jehovah, the God of the Old and New Testament. You are well aware of this.
Not everyone believes in the same god as you, or in any god at all. Does that make any difference to you? Or, are you so certain you've got it right that it doesn't matter what other people believe?
Man always had reason; he didn't need government because he was perfect. (For a Chapter or two) :)
The flood is not mythical. It is a fact. I am no expert on archaeology, but I have read that the evidence supports it.
Human beings predate Christianity and the Bible by tens of thousands of years. Are you saying that rights didn't exist, or that people didn't understand the concept of rights, until the Bible came along?
Rights are eternal for man, I have stated this before. They existed from the time of God's creation of man because God has always existed. The Bible was begun probably during the time of Moses. Therefore the book of Genesis took place long before the Bible was written. I would contend that some rights (though not all) were understood by man before they were written down. Sometimes we call this natural law. Natural law would be something that is inherent in God's creation, and is evident in observation. For instance, anyone can see that homosexual behavior is not natural to the creature. Of God had many things to cover inHis law that were not so evident, and that is why it is written down.
God also has given everyone a conscience. We know certain things are wrong. We tend to ignore our cosncience with great frequency. God knows I have too many times. But the law codified a great deal.
Are their an infinite number of rights? I don't think so. Although I would have to hear what you mean by that.
I am not sure what you mean by "red herring". I am simply saying what I think and trying to explain myself.
The 1st Commandment states that no one may worship a god other than the god of the Bible. Don't people have the right to worship whichever god they choose?
I don't think the government should stop people from worshipping false gods. That would cause many more problems than it would solve and it would probably result in the abuse of the power that God has given government.
But to answer your question - before God, you do not have the right to worship other gods. God has no interest in anyone's supposed "right" to worship other gods. So you won't answer to our government, but you will answer to God when you die, and that is much more serious. God will not allow anyone into His kingdom who has unrepentantly worshipped false gods. Anyone who does not believe must repent and God will accept them.
Defining justice and law would take many volumes, but here goes. Very simply, justice is that condition which corresponds with the correctness and rightness of God. Law is something created either by God or by man. Legitimate law either corresponds to, or does not contradict, the created or revealed law of God.
Man is different from the animals because we bear the image of God. We are His prized creation. We have the ability to morally reason and make decisiosn based on conscience or morality.
Evil is that which stands in opposition to the one true God and His son, Jesus Christ. From time to time I engage in behavior that is in opposition to God, His purposes, and His law. This I would define as evil.
Government exists primarily for those things I mentioned. If government wants to fix the cement on my street, I would not necessarily object to that, though that must be low on the priority list next to defending us against evil people and making sure that justice is done. I am not crazy about government being an instrument of social welfare. I think that is primarily the job of the church. I am not sure how else to answer your question without writing a volume.
Not everyone believes in the same god as you, or in any god at all. Does that make any difference to you? Or, are you so certain you've got it right that it doesn't matter what other people believe?
People that believe in false gods, or no god at all, are severly deluded, but they matter a great deal to God. Jesus Christ lives for people like that. They need to repent and believe. As far as the proper understanding of truth goes, however, the opinions of unbelievers matter only insofar as they mislead others or the culture in which they live. In other words the opinions of those who have a false understanding of truth should not matter in the least, except when attempting to counter their arguments. Bad politics finds its beginning in untruths in the heart and minds of individuals.
The Founding Fathers believed this too, which is why they put so many road blocks up in our Republican system. It ia hard to get something done in our system of government, and no one has absolute power. That is by design, as I am sure I do not need to tell you. If the Congress passes something bad, stupid, or criminal, we have a court system that can strike it down. If the people elect an incompetent or a criminal, he can be unelected, recalled, or impeached. (In my opinion we don't do that nearly as often as we should.)
So, although man possessed the faculty of reason he was incapable of applying it to his surroundings to discern right from wrong (because he was perfect for a chapter or two). And that's why he didn't need government. Well, why didn't you just say so?
The flood is not mythical. It is a fact. I am no expert on archaeology, but I have read that the evidence supports it.
The flood might be true. And it might not be. But, wether it was or wasn't isn't relevant to this discussion (ie. a red herring).
They [rights] existed from the time of God's creation of man because God has always existed.
This is known as a non-sequitur.
I would contend that some rights (though not all) were understood by man before they were written down. Sometimes we call this natural law. Natural law would be something that is...evident in observation. [emphasis added by me]
You're getting warmer.
God also has given everyone a conscience. We know certain things are wrong.
Yes, humans have discernment. But, by what process do humans discern right from wrong?
Are their an infinite number of rights? I don't think so. Although I would have to hear what you mean by that.
To understand why an infinite number of rights exist, and that they all cannot be listed, you must first understand what rights are and how they're defined.
I am not sure what you mean by "red herring".
The last third of your post consists of hypostatizing, reification, and red herrings. If you're trying to make an argument based on what we've discussed I'm at a loss to understand it. I've sat here for half an hour and can't figure out what to respond to or how to respond to it because it makes no sense. Perhaps somebody else will have better luck.
You and I simply disagree. I continue to maintain that a belief in God (the true God of the Bible) is a prerequisite for having any true understanding of human rights. We must call on something higher than ourselves, or we are just pontificating. Be well.
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.