Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Legislature Must Stand Up For The Definition of Marriage

Feb 10, 2004 12:27AM PST

The Following Editorial is from The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune. Sunday, February 8, 2004


OUR VIEW
Only a Legislature with enough backbone to insist that a free, democratic people are ruled by laws, not edicts from a four-person tribunal, can stop this from happening.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A slim majority on a sharply divided court is about to force a fundamental change in the understanding of human relationships on the people of Massachusetts.
Only a Legislature with enough backbone to insist that a free, democratic people are ruled by laws, not edicts from a four-person tribunal, can stop this from happening.

We have reached a crisis point in Massachusetts on the question of same-sex marriage. The Supreme Judicial Court by a 4-3 majority ruled in November that the state constitution does not permit laws barring same-sex couples from marrying. The court issued a 180-day stay on its ruling to give the Legislature time to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."

The Senate asked the court if a Vermont-style "civil unions" bill, granting same-sex couples all the legal benefits of traditional marriage, would suffice. On Wednesday, the court, again split 4-3, said no. Only full marriage satisfies its decision.

Justice Martha B. Sosman, one of the dissenters, rightly called the majority "activist" and "dogmatic."

These four justices in the majority -- Margaret H. Marshall, John M. Greaney, Roderick L. Ireland and Judith A. Cowin -- appointed to their posts, not elected, have taken upon themselves the decision to redefine marriage for the 6 million citizens of the commonwealth. We are to have no say.

This is not democracy but tyranny. A free people must not stand idly by in the face of it.

Marriage throughout human history has been the union of one man and one woman. It is the structure through which families are formed and maintained over generations. Each of us can trace his or her lineage back through father and grandfather, mother and grandmother. We live on past our natural deaths through children, grandchildren and their descendants.

The history of human families is a history of marriages.

The sacred bond of marriage in a religious context is not the issue here. No law can force a religion to change its understanding of marriage.

The issue is whether the state has an interest in keeping civil marriage unique as a bond between a man and a woman. It surely does.

Marriage fosters the formation of stable families, the backbone of civil society. Numerous studies have shown the ill effects on society that come from a breakdown of families.

Truly, heterosexual marriage is not perfect. Many end in divorce. Childish fools like singer Britney Spears make a mockery of marriage with drunken weddings just for the "fun" of it. But heterosexual marriage is the model civil society must promote.

Marriage is not a civil rights issue, as gay marriage advocates insist. People are denied the right to marry due to the age of the parties, their relationship or the desire to marry more than one individual.

Same-sex couples should not be denied the legal benefits that accrue to heterosexual couples. They should have the right to inherit, to speak and act in the interest of an ill partner, to enter into contracts jointly and enjoy any other financial advantages. Call it a "civil union" if you will. But it is not a "marriage."

More importantly, let us remember that homosexual men and women are our fellow citizens, entitled to be treated with dignity and respect, not hatred or derision.

There is no law, no government without the consent of the governed. That principle, not same-sex marriage, is the foundation of the Massachusetts Constitution. The Legislature must stand up for the right of citizens to rule themselves.

If the court will not be swayed from the path of tyranny, the Legislature must act to give the people their voice.

The Legislature should move forward with a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man with one woman and let the people have their say at the ballot box. It should petition the court to stay its order until that process is complete.

When the people have exercised their democratic rights, let us all agree to abide by the result.

If we are to rewrite a definition of marriage that has existed for thousands of years, it must be by the will of the people, not four judges, that we do it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:A little more poetry?
Feb 12, 2004 1:07AM PST

same sex marriage? i'll give it a pass
i have better things to do with my ***

or maybe

a successful marriage? there is no trick
just make sure that at least ONE has a ****

or to be "poetic"...

a good song has both words AND music

- Collapse -
Re:Re:A little more poetry?
Feb 12, 2004 1:09AM PST

You have a particularly limited view of marriage.

Dan

- Collapse -
Re: a limited view of marriage.???
Feb 12, 2004 4:55AM PST

would you care to expound on that theory??? because as far as i see it, you seem to ignore the fact that most weddings include the words "we are gathered here today to witness the union between this man and this woman" NOT "these two carbon based individuals"....

anybody who want's to "opt out" from the standard heterosexual style wedding/marriage is welcome to do so, anybody who wants "equal rights" is welcome to them, anybody who wants to be recognised as a "partner for life" is welcome to do so, but DO NOT expect/request/demand that i recognise/respect the word 'marriage' when it's used for two men or two women!

- Collapse -
How sad you are
Feb 12, 2004 11:35PM PST

that you think these people want or care about your respect or recognition. Just mind your own marriage and get out of the way of others'.

Dan

- Collapse -
Re:out of curiosity, were you standing or sitting when you wrote that?
Feb 12, 2004 11:48PM PST

and you didn't explain why you think i have a limited view of marriage?

- Collapse -
bait ignored
Feb 12, 2004 11:54PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:bait ignored...easier than answering a question, right?...nt
Feb 13, 2004 12:30AM PST

.

- Collapse -
A limited view of marriage is good.
Feb 13, 2004 2:22AM PST

If we are speaking of it being limited to a man and a woman.

- Collapse -
Re:out of curiosity, were you standing or sitting when you wrote that?
Feb 13, 2004 12:10AM PST

and you didn't explain why you think i have a limited view of marriage?

- Collapse -
bait ignored every time you post it
Feb 13, 2004 12:20AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:and you had the nerve to call me ''sad''
Feb 13, 2004 12:33AM PST

sheesh! coming from a man who answers a 'glitch'....

- Collapse -
Re:and you had the nerve to call me ''sad''
Feb 13, 2004 12:42AM PST

sheesh! coming from a man who answers a 'glitch'....

- Collapse -
Sounds like tunnel vision to me...
Feb 10, 2004 10:56AM PST
- Collapse -
after much thought, and soul searching...i am for same sex marriage, on ONE condition
Feb 12, 2004 1:01AM PST

if it's 2 men, one of them HAS to wear a dress!!

- Collapse -
Ummmm, that's called cross dressing, and is not unusual. If you're not up
Feb 12, 2004 11:51PM PST

on the subject, you'ld be amazed at how many variations and combinations there are. If you can imagine it, someone's doing it.

- Collapse -
Re:it's called cross dressing.....i know what it is, and you'd be amazed
Feb 13, 2004 12:28AM PST

at how many homosexuals don't cross dress...