(AgapePress) - The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is clearing the way for the nation's first same-sex "marriages" to take place in the state as soon as mid-May.

The court ruled today that civil unions are not good enough -- that in order to satisfy the state constitution, homosexual couples must have access to full, equal marriages rights. The high court's opinion comes in response to a request from the State Senate about whether civil unions -- like those allowed in Vermont -- would be enough.

The court had ruled in November that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. It then gave the Massachusetts legislature six months to change the laws and allow that to happen. At a constitutional convention next week, the legislature will consider an amendment that would legally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman -- but that process could take time.

Because of today's ruling, the issue of homosexual marriage is likely to emerge as a major campaign issue elections later this year. Current Democratic frontrunner John Kerry, who is from Massachusetts, is on record as supporting civil unions for same-sex couples, but he has not endorsed homosexual marriage.

President Bush opposes same-sex unions and has indicated, as he did during his State of the Union address in January, that he would support a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage if that is what it takes to stop what he called "activist judges" from "redefining marriage by court order." Pro-family leaders are saying -- as they did in January and long before -- that now is the time for such an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Immediate Action Necessary
One of those pro-family leaders is Tony Perkins of Family Research Council in Washington, DC. He says Wednesday's decision by the Massachusetts high court leaves no doubt what is at stake in the Bay State.

Tony Perkins

"Either the institution of marriage will be protected, or it will be redefined out of existence," he says in a press release. "We are not just fighting to preserve marriage in Massachusetts. This case will determine the future of marriage throughout America. If same-sex couples 'marry' in Massachusetts and move to other states, the Defense of Marriage Act will be left vulnerable to the same federal courts that have banned the Pledge of Allegiance and sanctioned partial-birth abortion."

"This decision leaves no doubt that we must, immediately, pass a federal marriage amendment," Perkins says.

Tim Wildmon, president of the Mississippi-based American Family Association, agrees with Perkins. Wildmon says the ruling shows the need for swift action from the White House.

"It is imperative that we move forward immediately with a federal marriage amendment that protects in the Constitution the definition of marriage as it has always been: between one man and one woman," he says. "And as of yesterday, we have assurances from the White House that President George W. Bush is going to announce very soon that he is wholly and fully supportive of a federal marriage amendment."

According to Wildmon, the need for such an amendment is more pressing than ever. He cites a theoretical -- but entirely probable -- situation.

"Because of what's called the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution, which makes states accept other states' laws like this, it's very likely that a Bill and Steve could go get married in Massachusetts, come back to another state, and a federal judge say [for example], 'Kentucky, you have to recognize this marriage that has taken place in Massachusetts," the AFA president says.

Sandy Rios

Sandy Rios, president of Concerned Women for America, says both the legislature and the citizens of Massachusetts need to stand firm in the face of "judicial tyranny."

"The people [of Massachusetts] are not going to let a few renegade judges destroy the fundamental institution of marriage," Rios says. "The founders of this state were patriots committed to the cause of liberty and equality. The people will not stand by and let the state become a dictatorship ruled by tyrannical judges."

Holding the Lawmakers Accountable
The head of the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy says it's time for the Massachusetts legislature to use its authority to protect traditional marriage. Attorney Steve Crampton says the mistake the Bay State lawmakers made was asking the court's opinion on marriage.

Steve Crampton

"The court has attempted to usurp the authority of the [Massachusetts] Senate and the House," the AFA attorney says, "and now the Senate president -- by going back to the court to ask for this clarification -- has effectively bowed the knee and recognized the authority of the court when it really was inappropriate in the first place."

Crampton says it is time the Massachusetts politicians did what the constitution gives them the right to do: use their authority to define marriage.

Jan LaRue

Jan LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women for America, also has a message for the lawmakers in Boston. "If the legislature rubber stamps the court's ruling by codifying same-sex marriage, they ought to turn in their paychecks and resign," she says. "The only appropriate response is a constitutional amendment and impeachment of the four judges [who made the ruling]."

LaRue points out that in November, the Supreme Judicial Court gave the legislature 180 days to take whatever action "it deemed appropriate in light of the ruling." She says amending the state's constitution is appropriate action.

"If the amendment is passed, the governor should issue an executive order forbidding the issuances of licenses except to opposite-sex couples in accordance with the marriage laws [that are still on the books]," LaRue says.

© 2004 AgapePress all rights reserved.

E-mail this page to a friend

Printer-Friendly Version

Read all of our current headlines