(U-WIRE) - For thousands of years, marriage between a woman and a man has been a bedrock of civilization with cultural, legal, religious and historical underpinnings that provide the foundation for society's most basic social unit: The family. Recently, though, the institution has come under attack, most notably last week when four judicial activists on the Massachusetts State Supreme Court struck down that state's ban on gay marriages as unconstitutional. The decision was both poor and erroneous and left many unanswered questions about gay rights and the role of the judiciary in shaping public policy.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court not only struck down the state's ban on gay marriages, but it also ordered the legislature to craft a homosexual-marriage law within the next 180 days. Wordy as it may be, the state supreme court's ruling on the unconstitutionality of a gay marriage ban was unconstitutional in itself. The Massachusetts state constitution provides for the separation of powers in the same way the U.S. Constitution provides for separation in the federal government. The purpose is to prevent the judiciary from interfering in the relationship between representatives and their constituents. But this is essentially what the Massachusetts court did; the four judges bypassed the elected branches of the state to impose their personal opinions onto the people of Massachusetts.
Beyond the legalese of the court's decision and written opinion lies the fundamental principle of marriage. The Massachusetts Supreme Court majority opinion mentions two individuals. It's no coincidence marriage is between two people - there are two genders, male and female. We're entering dangerous terrain when a crucial element of society can be defined by a simple majority of judges on a court. The legislature of Massachusetts has the power to fashion social policy, not the courts. The dissenting opinion in the gay marriage ruling rightfully points out that the court has transformed its role as a protector of individual rights into the role of creator of rights.
Many proponents of homosexual marriage might label as reactionary the logic that draws a line from the legalization of gay marriage to the legalization of polygamy or group marriages. But if a dedicated nontraditional bond such as a gay union is to count as a marriage, then by that rationale other dedicated nontraditional bonds would also merit validity. This could include anything from two men and one woman who all love each other or even an uncle and his niece. Once you start down the slippery slope, there's no turning back.
Up until now, portions of the media and gay activists have been effective in stifling free debate on the issue by painting anyone who opposes or questions homosexual marriage as homophobe or bigot. Just witness the outcry and calls for resignation of Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., after he compared sodomy to bigamy, polygamy and incest. A quick reality check, though, reveals the truth. The top six of the nine Democratic presidential hopefuls are on record as saying they oppose gay marriage. Also, a recent Time/CNN poll revealed 62 percent of respondents opposed gay marriage while 32 percent were in support.
If you haven't realized by now that the issue here is the sanctity of marriage and not homosexuality, then you're tragically mistaken. Almost everyone has gay friends, maybe even a gay relative, and opponents of homosexual marriage are not trying to abridge the rights of gays to their pursuit of happiness. But we don't need laws, polls or even religion to see that in the eyes of nature the union between a woman and a man is not the same as a union between those of the same sex.
17 Archives
Joe Schilling
