Pro-Family Groups Oppose Amendment to Massachusetts
Constitution Proposed by VoteOnMarriage.org
Statement of Principle
July 26, 2005
We, the undersigned, do hereby declare our opposition to the
newly proposed marriage amendment to the Massachusetts
Constitution, announced by the VoteOnMarriage.org ballot-question
committee on June 16, 2005.
We are deeply disappointed that we have been put in the position
of publicly disagreeing with groups who may share our goal of
ending same-sex "marriage". The signatories to this statement were
not consulted on the amendment by VoteOnMarriage prior to its
announcement June 16.
The text of the amendment proposed by VoteOnMarriage.org reads:
"When recognizing marriages entered after the adoption of this amendment by
the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define
marriage as only the union of one man and one woman."
This flawed amendment would harm rather than help efforts to end
the nightmare of same-sex "marriage" in our state and country. It
is not a "clean" amendment (i.e., one clearly supporting
traditional marriage and outlawing "civil unions"). Its most
serious flaws are:
- It would recognize as legal all same-sex "marriages" which
will have taken place in Massachusetts from May 17, 2004 until the
amendment should take effect.
- It would validate the Supreme Judicial Court's authority to
"make law", through its November 2003 Goodridge same-sex
"marriage" ruling.
- It continues to give the green light to radicals in our
schools to claim that since same-sex "marriages" exist and are
"legal", our children must be taught their legitimacy. Businesses
and institutions would have to continue to recognize them as well.
- It would fail to ban "civil unions", giving a tacit go-ahead
to the Legislature to authorize them.
- Though not a part of the wording of the proposed amendment,
VoteOnMarriage and the Governor have pledged to work with the
Legislature to implement "reciprocal benefits" for same-sex
couples. Given the SJC's history, the wording of this type of
legislation would be crucial.
This amendment does nothing to attack the root problem: runaway
judges. Even if it were passed by the voters, the amendment would
not withstand those judges' review. Besides, in regard to marriage,
our constitution is not flawed, and does not need amending.
The Massachusetts Constitution clearly states that "all causes
of marriage, divorce, and alimony … shall be heard and determined
by the governor and council until the legislature shall, by law,
make other provision." Also clear is the required separation of
powers: "In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative
department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers,
or either of them; the executive shall never exercise the
legislative and judicial powers, or either of them; the judicial
shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or
either of them; to the end it may be a government of laws, and not
of men."
We are troubled that VoteOnMarriage claims that nullifying the
same-sex "marriages" (performed prior to their amendment's
enactment) would not be possible, because the U.S. Constitution
prohibits ex post facto laws. This is misleading and untrue. An ex
post facto law makes illegal an act that was legal when committed
(or increases the penalties for an infraction after its commission,
or changes the rules of evidence to make conviction easier). These
"marriages" in question have never been legal to begin with; no law
was ever passed to enable same-sex couples to "marry". While the
Constitutional amendment currently before the Legislature
(Travaglini-Lees amendment) bans all same-sex marriages, no one has
brought up the ex post facto objection.
As matters of principle, we cannot accept either
VoteOnMarriage's neglect of the real problem --the judges -- or
their compromises with the forces pushing this dangerous
"lifestyle" on our society.
Those demanding same-sex "marriage" will never be satisfied by
token offerings from our side, but will rightly see such compromise
as weakness, and as we have learned, encouragement to demand and
get more. Political expediency should not dictate our goals. Our
legislators need to be presented with a choice that is
uncompromising and morally right.
We agree that the following actions are necessary in
Massachusetts, for the benefit the whole country, in order to
restore representative government and traditional values:
- Demand that the Legislature remove the four Supreme Judicial
Court justices responsible for the illegitimate same-sex
"marriage" ruling.
- Continue to alert the public and our elected officials to the
radical homosexual activists' coercive indoctrination of our
children in the public schools, and demand its cessation.
- Continue to alert Massachusetts and the entire nation to the
socially destabilizing effects of same-sex "marriage", as well as
the public health dangers inherent in the acceptance and promotion
of the homosexual "lifestyle".
VoteOnMarriage has called on us to "put aside our
differences." This we wish to do, but we cannot put aside our
constitutional and moral principles. We invite their cooperation in
achieving our goals listed above.
Massachusetts:
Article 8 Alliance / Parents' Rights Coalition
CPF / The Fatherhood Coalition
Families for Truth (Bedford/Carlisle/Chelmsford/Groton/Westford)
Mothers Against Pedophilia
(Individuals)
John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D.
R. T. Neary, B.S., M.Ed., M.A.
National:
Abiding Truth Ministries
American Family Association of Mississippi
American Family Association of Missouri
American Family Association of Pennsylvania
Americans for Truth
Campaign for California Families
Christian Education Awareness Network (CEANet)
Eagle Forum Texas
Family Policy Network
GetTheKidsOut.org
Illinois Family Institute
Mission America
Traditional Values Coalition
|
