By Fred Jackson and Jody Brown
March 4, 2003

(AgapePress) - Pro-family groups are monitoring an extremely important case that opens today before the Massachusetts Supreme Court. They say the outcome could have national ramifications for the definition of marriage.

At stake in Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health is whether homosexuals should be guaranteed the right to marry under Massachusetts law. A lesbian couple is suing for full marital rights and recognition. Julie and Hillary Goodridge are members of the Unitarian Universalist Church, which has filed a brief supporting their case. They are one of seven homosexual couples bringing the lawsuit.

According to The Washington Times, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is perceived as liberal and likely favorable to the homosexual plaintiffs.

Ken Connor is head of the Family Research Council (FRC). He says no one should fail to recognize that Massachusetts is merely the starting gate for the homosexual lobby. He says should they prevail in this case, homosexual activists -- under the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution -- will seek to impose the ruling on every other state.

"[M]arriage pre-dates the State of Massachusetts and it has an unchangeable definition: the union of one man and one woman," Connor says. "Any attempt by the court to modify that definition will send our nation on a path where fundamental institutions of our society no longer have definitions, and ultimately, no longer exist."

Of major concern to FRC and other pro-family groups is that activist judges may ignore the will of the majority -- and hundreds of years of how marriage has been defined -- and simply create new legislation that gives the homosexuals what they want.

"The Massachusetts court must recognize that its role is to determine the constitutionality of legislation, not to create legislation itself," he says. "If they mistakenly rule that there is a constitutional right for homosexuals to marry, where will that right end?"

Connor warns that if that happens, it opens the door to polygamists and virtually every other so-called "relationship" to demand the same thing.

Matt Daniels is with the Alliance for Marriage, a Virginia-based group that promotes traditional marriage. Daniels tells Associated Press that if same-sex marriage is legalized, people of faith who believe homosexual behavior is sinful will be branded as bigots. The Alliance for Marriage is calling for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Wrestling on the West Coast
At the same time, a pro-family group on the other side of the country continues to battle for traditional marriage. Campaign for California Families (CCF) and several pro-marriage legislators gathered yesterday in Sacramento to expose what it calls "the intolerant face" of several pieces of legislation being pushed by pro-homosexual legislators.

Randy Thomasson

Randy Thomasson is executive director of CCF. He says the five-member "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus" has introduced a series of bills that would redefine traditional marriage.

"This raft of radical homosexual and transsexual agenda bills are intolerant of the sacred institution of marriage and the voters, and discriminate against religious freedom, parental rights, and the Boy Scouts," Thomasson says in a press release.

The bills, he says, would recognize all "civil unions," much like Vermont does currently (AB 205); levy fines up to $150,000 on business owners who refuse to hire transsexuals (AB 196); force businesses doing business with the state to subsidize spousal-equivalent benefits for homosexual employees (AB 17); require foster parents to support pro-homosexual behavior among foster children (AB 458); create a commission that would be empowered to build pro-homosexual displays at veterans' memorials in the state (AB 1520); and award constitutionally protected spousal benefits to unmarried cohabitants in the area of property taxes (SCA 5).

Republican Assemblyman Tim Leslie notes that American society and law has consistently affirmed that the foundational institution of marriage is the most critical relationship of all. "But ... the California Legislature wants to pass these rights around to relationships that are not marriage," Leslie says. "That is wrong.

"Such an action would be contrary to our historical values ... contrary to religious values ... [and] contrary to the will of the people of California as clearly expressed in Proposition 22," he says.

Three years ago, more than 60% of California voters approved Proposition 22, a measure that says only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Associated Press contributed to this story.

© 2003 AgapePress all rights reserved.

 

E-mail this page to a friend Printer-Friendly Version