The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in a unanimous decision that a proposed constitutional amendment to ban future gay marriage can be placed on the ballot as long as the amendment is approved by the legislature. For those who care (hat tip to Instapundit), the entire ruling is here.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Judicial Court said the proposed amendment is not a “reversal” of the court’s ruling legalizing gay marriage but a proposed change to the state constitution, which can be legally done through a citizen initiative.
“The underlying substantive law is simply changed to reflect the present intentions of the people, and that new law will be applied thereafter in any subsequent case or cases,” the court said in its ruling.
Justice John M. Greaney, in a concurring opinion, warned that approving an amendment banning gay marriage would be discriminatory because it would remove the rights of same-sex couples to the legal, social and financial benefits of marriage.
“The only effect of a positive vote will be to make same-sex couples, and their families, unequal to everyone else; this is discrimination in its rawest form,” Greaney wrote.
With a landmark 2003 ruling, the court cleared the way for same-sex marriages to begin in Massachusetts in May 2004. More than 8,000 gay couples have married since.
The state Legislature is expected to take up the ballot question Wednesday during a constitutional convention.
…
Forty-five states have specifically barred same-sex marriage through statutes or constitutional amendments. Last week, justices on New York’s highest court ruled gay marriage is illegal there under state law, and Georgia’s high court ruled its state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was legal [also see here — Michael].
Supporters of a constitutional amendment in Massachusetts predict they will have enough votes to win the first round of approval from the Legislature. They would also need to win approval in the next legislative session.
“We are comfortably in excess of 50 votes,” said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.
It looks like gay marriage is rapidly becoming a non-issue. Do we need a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage? Right now it doesn’t look like it but public opinions can change over the years (gay marriage would not have even been a topic for debate 30 years ago) and it would be good for posterity if we had an amendment stating that marriage is between one man and one woman. Period.
Part of the push to recognize gay marriage is to open the door for other types of “marriage.” The argument goes that if Joe and Steve love each other, then they should have a right to get married. Push the envelope just a little bit and we will have groups arguing in courts in 10 years’ time that if 30-year Bill and 10-year Johnny love each other, then they should be able to get married. You don’t believe me? Check out the home page for the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). They make this statement about pederasty.
Pederasty, like homosexuality, has existed, and exists, in all societies that have ever been studied. Homo-eroticism is a ubiquitous feature of human experience, as even efforts to repress it confirm. Men and youths have always been attracted to each other, and, like homosexuality in general, their love is irrepressible. Even if it is far from triumphing, or flowering with the freedom it merits and has enjoyed in some other cultures (for example, Siwa oasis in Egypt), still, it can never be repressed. It will continue to find its way to expression despite all the efforts to suppress and demonize it. As John Henry Mackay wrote in 1924 in The Books of the Nameless Love:
They murder our love and yet it lives.
They throttle our cry and it echoes back from the future.
And if the criteria for marriage is merely loving one another, then why not have group marriages between a combination of 6 or 7 males, females, and children? Recognizing gay marriage is the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent.
Now, lest any of you think that I hate homosexuals, I do not. Christ loves all people and, as a Christian, I must do the same. I had this to say back in March:
The homosexual community is a desperately hurting community. There are many people dying of AIDS who are sick, lonely, depressed, and devoid of a relationship with God. Homosexuals are often violent with one another and the rate of drug use is high. I would argue that we Christians need to treat homosexuals, and especially AIDS patients, as we once treated lepers. Yeah, homosexuality is gross. Hugging a gay man can be difficult at first. But our job show them Christ’s love, help them to repent and change their lives, and bring them into a right relationship with God and other people.
Several years ago, a formerly gay friend died in my arms. His sister and I were the only ones in the room, and she was holding his right side while I was holding his left side. If it were not for his sister’s unconditional love, the man might never have come to know Christ. He learned Christ’s love for him through her actions and her words. Our job is not to make enemies of homosexuals, but rather to love them as Christ loves all sinners.
