current | archives | profile | notes | contact | rings | host




Massachusetts allows the minority to dictate to the majority

February 07, 2004 ~ 2:15 p.m.

Put me in the same class as many of those mentioned here.

I think it�s a shame that we�d need a constitutional amendment barring gay marriages. For all my strong opposition to gay marriage, I have to say, so frivolously toying with the Massachusetts state constitution�as House Speaker Tom Finneran (a Democrat, I feel compelled to point out) and other lawmakers propose�should not be the answer. What we need to do is challenge the Mass. Supreme Court judiciously over its definition of marriage, which, as it currently stands, isn�t much. My home state�s supreme lawmakers seem to think marriage is a very trivial thing. No wonder they didn�t think twice about declaring gay marriage legitimate. Legislation known as the Defense of Marriage act, which other U.S. states have, should definitely be enacted in Massachusetts� case.

Before Howard Dean hit the road and amused us all with his rapidly sinking bid to capture the Jackass presidential nomination, he was the governor of Vermont�and he, admittedly, did something very good there. During his tenure as governor, Vermont was the first state to legalize civil unions, giving all the basic benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, while making it clear, however, that this was not marriage; it was as close as gays were ever going to get to being married.

That was not so long ago. In the space of only a short few years, however, the gay rights movement, having seen progress on the civil union front, saw fit to push the issue further and go all out for full marriage. Like all radical elements of society, these people are never satisfied (by that I mean the soi-disant gay rights movement, not all gays).

I know of two gay people here on Diaryland who�ve admitted to me that even they questioned gay marriage (originally opposed it, flip-flopped on the subject, etc.) before deciding to support it. What does that tell you? That even gays themselves might balk at smashing a traditional institution is pretty strong evidence that completely changing the definition and character of marriage might not be in society�s best interest.

The problem as I see it is that liberals, the majority of which laud the Bay State�s ruling on gay marriage, do not seem to understand that you cannot get this progressive so soon, forcing ideas down people�s throats before they�re ready to accept them. Yesterday, it was civil unions. Today, it�s gay marriage. Tomorrow, it�ll be the world.

My biggest opposition to gay marriage is libertarian in focus. Yes, I said libertarian: Since when, as a nation, have we deemed it acceptable to let the minority hold sway over the majority? I understood a democracy, which the U.S. supposedly is, to mean that the majority rules while the minority has civil rights. I believe that gays, like anyone else, should have basic civil rights. The right to buy housing, the right to purchase life insurance for them and their partners, the right to have crimes against them taken seriously by the police, etc. But marriage is not a civil right! What rights are we taking away from gays that they haven�t already earned through civil unions?

Here�s part of what Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney wrote regarding the gay marriage decision:

�With the Dred Scott case, decided four years before he took office, President Lincoln faced a judicial decision that he believed was terribly wrong and badly misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution. Here is what Lincoln said: �If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.� By its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts circumvented the Legislature and the executive, and assumed to itself the power of legislating. That�s wrong.�

Regarding gay marriage and the activist judges who ruled in favor of it: My sentiments exactly!

This is why I will never allow a liberal to lecture me about the meaning of democracy. Gay marriage is just one example of how little they care about the majority rule. If the majority doesn�t agree with the minority, hell, they�ll just take the issue to court and get it forced on people. Democracy�forgive the pun�my ass!

� M.E.M.

[Sign My Guestbook] [View My Guestbook]
Powered by E-Guestbooks Server.

Copyright � 2001-2007 by M.E. Manning. All material is written by me, unless explicitly stated otherwise by use of footnotes or bylines. Do not copy or redistribute without my permission.

Old Cinders | Fresh Fire

AMERICA FOR TRUE AMERICANS!

-