The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in a 4 to 3 decision, determined that the distinction between the term "civil marriage" and "civil union" reflects a demonstrable assigning of same sex, largely homosexual, couples to second class status. This ruling the Massachusetts high court paves the road for homosexual marriages in Massachusetts beginning May 17th.
President Bush weighed in on the Massachusetts rulings and said "marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. If activist judges insist on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
It should be noted, as of the date of this article, no state in the United States has voted to approve homosexual marriages; and, in fact, Arizona and thirty-six (36) other states have specific statues defining marriage as a heterosexual institution. Other states are considering constitutional amendments to their state constitutions prohibiting homosexual marriages.
The Unites States Congress passed a law in 1996, called the "The Defense of Marriage Act", which prohibits federal recognition of homosexual marriages and also relieves individual states of any obligation to recognize homosexual marriages, even if the homosexual marriage was performed in a state where it may be legal.
Many in the homosexual community may flock to Massachusetts to obtain what they believe is a legally authorized marriage, then consequently return to Arizona or another state that prohibits homosexual marriages and then they will want Arizona to recognize their marriage that took place in Massachusetts. Certainly this will open the doors to numerous types of litigation, who can get married, who can adopt children, who can receive state and federal benefits, etc.
Some opponents of homosexual marriages assert that if two men can be married and that is a legal marriage under the laws, then whey can't three men be in a marriage under the same law or is it possible that a marriage could be with one man and two women or two men and one woman, or why not a marriage between two siblings. Obviously, the absurdities and extensions of straying from the pure definition of "a marriage is a sacred institution between a man and woman" could lead us down the slippery slope of the demise of the traditional family as we now know it.
We all must be careful to remember that defending the traditional marriage between a man and a woman is not an attack on homosexuals, single people or non-traditional unions. Everyone has their right of free agency to live in the manner in which they choose as long as it does not trample on the rights of other people.
Finally, everyone has a right to their own opinion. Many people will be impacted by the Massachusetts decision. Preserve the voice of the people and elect representatives who we feel will speak on our behalf. Let's prevent judicial activism and keep the power of our United States democracy with the people.
P.S. As of the printing of this article, San Francisco's newly elected Mayor ordered City Hall to violate state law and issue marriage licenses to thirty (30) homosexual couples. Then, city officials performed over (30) weddings. Massachusetts legislature, in March 2004 is convening a constitutional convention to consider amending its state constitution to prohibit same sex marriages. The floodgates are open to attempt to redefine marriage!
If you have any questions about family law please contact Rowley Chapman Barney & Buntrock and ask for Paul S. Rowley at (480) 833-1113.
