|
|
|
COMMENTARY • January 2004 |
Massachusetts ruling undermines society
By Ron Crews
CHRISTIAN EXAMINER- Opinion |
In the weeks since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reinterpreted the state constitution to order up “marriage” for homosexuals, there’s been a lot of discussion, public and private. Polls show that opposition to same-sex “marriage”—despite massive media efforts to the contrary—has actually risen since that ruling was made, and for good reason.
The four justices who’ve imposed their view of what marriage should be on the people of Massachusetts—and by extension, the rest of America—said that opposition to homosexual “marriage” is rooted in an outdated bigotry that the state may not be able to control, but cannot tolerate. In doing so, the court didn’t just hijack a major decision that, by rights, belongs solely to the voters of Massachusetts through their elected representatives in the legislature, and it didn’t just completely rewrite the state constitution.
It lied to us.
As the Alliance Defense Fund has pointed out, the Massachusetts courts began this descent 20 years ago, when a state court ruled that a person’s sexual orientation or marital status is not relevant to a custody decision about what is in the best interest of a child. Ten years ago, a Massachusetts court said the state must permit homosexual couples to adopt children. Seeming to forget that since this situation would not exist unless the court had ordered that up too, the court is now saying that since homosexual couples have adopted children, the state must give them marriage licenses. In my view that’s circular reasoning, not common sense. It is the Supreme Judicial Court that created the slippery slope down which we’re sliding.
The English term “marriage” dates back to the 14th century, but the institution itself has existed since the dawn of time. Marriage is not, as the Supreme Judicial Court opined, merely the creation of the state. Nor is it solely a creation of the Judeo-Christian worldview. Marriage is ingrained on the human conscience as existing solely between a man and a woman. That is why this is the only commonly accepted arrangement found across all spectrums of religion, race and culture.
Marriage between men and women has been maintained by all major religions through the ages, and subsequently by the state, because it is the only arrangement that benefits society. Marriage has never been solely about affirming the love between two partners; historically, it’s always been about benefiting society. It began in ancient times even in completely pagan cultures as a way to domesticate men, to force them to take responsibility for the children they helped create. Modern research bears out the wisdom of that idea: Children raised in two-parent homes where both a mother and a father are present grow up having better education, fewer physical and mental health problems, and are less likely than others to commit violent crimes as adults.
When society loses perspective on what marriage is—the permanent bonding of one man and one woman—these benefits are lost. If the court’s ruling that marriage means whatever the court says it means is allowed to stand, it will be virtually impossible to deny marriage licenses to those seeking legal recognition of other “arrangements.” Once limitations on the sex of marriage partners are overturned, activists favoring polygamy and “group-marriage” will have an effective argument against limitations on the number of partners. Ultimately, women and children will pay the price: Women will become objects to be collected and used—not to be committed to, cherished and loved. Children will be denied either a mother or a father 100 percent of the time—and that is never compassionate.
All that’s standing between the permanent loss of the unique benefits marriage brings to the citizens of Massachusetts are the citizens of Massachusetts.
The Vatican has made its views clear twice this year alone, writing in Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons that “to vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.” That’s what all voters in the state need to tell their representatives when the legislature reconvenes next session. That’s when it will vote on the Massachusetts Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment—which is the ultimate remedy for keeping the Supreme Judicial Court from destroying marriage. Speak up. Marriage belongs to us, the people—not the court.
Dr. Ron Crews is the president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, a non-partisan public policy organization affirming Judeo-Christian values.
|
All site contents copyright© Christian Examiner™ (formerly the Christian Times)
Christian Examiner™, P.O. Box 2606 El Cajon, CA 92021 • 619-668-5100 • Fax 619-668-1115
Email: info@christianexaminer.com • Web site: www.christianexaminer.com |
|
