Massachusetts to expand same-sex weddings

Lawmakers in Massachusetts are resurrecting a once-abandoned bill that would allow out-of-state duos to visit, obtain a Massachusetts "marriage" and then return home and create "havoc" with it, according to a pro-family organization.

"This bill would destabilize the Massachusetts marriage laws," wrote Brian Camenker in his Mass Resistance alert on the issue. "Currently no out-of-state couple can get 'married' in Massachusetts if that marriage would not be legal in their home state. This would overturn that law."

Massachusetts was the first state to allow same-sex duos to obtain a "marriage" license, several years ago. The action followed orders from state officials that county clerks must start issuing those certificates to duos other than the traditional one-man, one-woman couples. That in turn followed a Massachusetts Supreme Court opinion that said such couples could be recognized as "married."

"Earlier this year, MassResistance successfully lobbied against this bill, despite the push by the 'gay' movement. We gave very hard-hitting testimony at the public hearing, and warned the Judiciary Committee it would be vigorously opposed from all over America. As a result, on May 1 the committee 'killed' it by putting it into a 'study,'" Camenker's announcement said.

"But the recent events in California have apparently energized the homosexual lobby. They apparently persuaded Sen. Robert Creedon (D-Brockton), Senate chairman of the judiciary committee, to take the unusual step of resurrecting it from the study to be voted on. Creedon, normally a pro-life, moderately pro-family senator, isn't running for re-election this fall. According to press reports, Sen. Diane Wilkerson (D-Mattapan), who led the charge to push for huge taxpayer-funding for homosexual programs in the schools, is the major force behind this also," he wrote.

(Story continues below)

What happened in California was that that state's Supreme Court, by a single vote like Massachusetts, voted to find within the state Constitution a "right" for homosexuals to be "married."

In that state the procedure also has been implemented by state officials without the Legislature's actually changing the laws that define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Officials there simply crossed out "man" and "woman" or "husband" and "bride" references and substituted "party 1" and "party 2."

Those "marriages," however, have an uncertain future, since a proposed constitutional amendment promoted by the ProtectMarriage.com organization already has been approved for this November's election ballot.

The amendment reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

And one of the followup questions would be: What happens to the "marriages" performed for same-sex couples between the time of the Supreme Court's opinion, and the possible veto of that opinion by the people of California.

In fact, homosexual groups now are actively trying to prevent the California vote, saying the five majority justices on the state Supreme Court simply can change the definition of a traditional social institution by vote, but the people cannot vote to protect it.

In Massachusetts, the mandate for same-sex "marriages" does not face that same uncertain future.

"This … would allow any homosexual couple in America to get 'married' here (in Massachusetts) – and cause havoc in their home states," Mass Resistance said. Such "couples" then would demand (using court challenges) that their home states legally recognize those marriages because of the US Constitution's 'full faith and credit' clause."

That would set up huge conflicts, because already 27 states have adopted into their own state constitutions a definition that marriage is only between one man and one woman, many with specific instructions that out-of-state same-sex "marriages" shall not be recognized.

The "gay" lobby has argued that Massachusetts' historic refusal to perform drive-in weddings for people who could not legally get married in their home state is "unfair," Mass Resistance said.

"But under that logic it's also 'unfair' to brothers and sisters, 13-year-olds," the organization wrote.

Mass Resistance warned that the state Senate plans a vote on the plan as early as Tuesday, and the House could consider it later in the week.

"Make some phone calls. Send them some e-mails. Read them the riot act. EVEN IF YOU LIVE OUTSIDE OF MASSACHUSETTS, let them hear from you – because this will affect you, too!!" Mass Resistance said.

"This would make Massachusetts a sort of Mecca for gay weddings, and there will be instability around the country," Camenker told WND. "Homosexuals are doing this to destabilize the country."

Homosexual activists, meanwhile, are desperately trying to clamp down on those who would do exactly as pro-family organizations fear in order to establish a nationwide strategy for an ultimate victory in their war on traditional marriage.

That report came from Baptist Press, whose writer Michael Foust recently revealed the existence of a six-page statement from organizations including the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders and American Civil Liberties Union.

Called "Make Change, Not Lawsuits," the statement encourages homosexuals to avoid filing lawsuits in their home states or in federal court once they return from California with their "marriage" license.

"The reason? Losses in such lawsuits could set the 'gay marriage' movement back for years," the Baptist Pres report said.

The strategy apparently is intended to help homosexual activists avoid a rerun of the 2005 case in Florida in which a federal judge threw out a lawsuit against the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and the 2003 decision by an Arizona state court to refuse to legalize "gay marriage," the Baptist Press report said.

The new battle plan says: "The fastest way to win the freedom to marry throughout America is by getting marriage through state courts (to show that fairness requires it) and state legislatures (to show that people support it).

"We need to start with states where we have the best odds of winning. When we've won in a critical mass of states, we can turn to Congress and the federal courts. At that point, we'll ask that the U.S. government treat all marriages equally. And we'll ask that all states give equal treatment to all marriages and civil unions that are celebrated in other states," it says.

"But one thing couples shouldn't do is just sue the federal government or, if they are from other states, go sue their home state or their employer to recognize their marriage or open up the health plan. Pushing the federal government before we have a critical mass of states recognizing same-sex relationships or suing in states where the courts aren't ready is likely to get us bad rulings. Bad rulings will make it much more difficult for us to win marriage, and will certainly make it take much longer," the strategy document says.

The issue of widely implemented same-sex marriage isn't even the worst of the coming problems for traditional families, the May 15 California Supreme Court opinion suggested.

In a dissent by Justice Marvin Baxter, he said the same logic used by the majority could be used to support other alternative sexual lifestyle choices.

"The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy," he wrote. "Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.

"Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?" Baxter said

---

Related offers:

"The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom"

"The Gay Agenda: It's Dividing the Family, the Church, and a Nation"

"Betrayed by the Bench"

Previous stories:

County surrenders in same-sex marriage war

Homosexual activists: Don't sue over marriage – now

Same-sex marriages begin in 'land of fruits, nuts'

Follow constitution, 'same-sex marriage' judges told

County clerk cancels civil wedding services

It's voters vs. black robes in November

City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'

County clerks urged to ignore same-sex marriage ruling

'Gay' marriage ruling to spark lawsuits nationwide

Whoa! Marriage laws aren't changed – yet

Supremes asked to give voters a chance

City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'

California battle over same-sex marriage not over

Black robes trash traditional marriage

California's 'judicial fiat' condemned – by judge

Plan pushes for last step in eliminating marriage

Court asked to protect 1-man, 1-woman marriage

Pro-marriage groups: 'Don't trust courts!'

Gov. Arnold 'terminates' man-and-woman marriage plan

Gov. Arnold says 'marriage' can be terminated

California handing out marriage privileges

'Marriage' to become museum piece

Homosexual marriage minces west to California

Court will decide if California voters were right

Vote or pay us damages, group tells lawmakers

7 more states say no to 'gay marriage'

Same-sex rulings will 'echo' across U.S.

Senate rejects 'gay marriage' ban

California Senate OKs 'gay' marriage

Mayor faces trial for same-sex marriages

60% of polled Americans: No homosexual marriage

It's 'gay' marriage in Massachusetts

Poll: Massachusetts opposes 'gay' marriage

'Gay' marriage ruling's consequences 'dire'

'Gay' marriage ban struck down in Massachusetts

Bush to block 'gay' marriage

Poll suggests backlash on 'gay' issues

Court strikes down Texas sodomy law

Supreme Court hears 'right to sodomy' case

High court to give 'gays' their own 'Roe'?