The Massachusetts high-court ruling yesterday that nothing less than "gay" marriage will pass constitutional muster is further energizing the majority of Americans who believe in the traditional family, according to conservative activists.

The New England state is on the verge of becoming the first to sanction same-sex marriage after its Supreme Judicial ruled Vermont-style civil unions will not fulfill its November decision, paving the way for the nation's first "gay" weddings in mid-May.

President Bush responded to the decision by calling the ruling "deeply troubling."

''Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman,'' Bush said in a statement. ''If activist judges insist on re-defining 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.''

Yesterday's opinion was a response to a request by the state Senate about whether civil unions, which accord many of the rights and privileges of marriage, would satisfy the court.

"The sleeping giant of the majority of Americans who believe in traditional family is awakening, and the Massachusetts decision has served only to energize this pro-family movement," said Mathew D. Staver, president and general counsel of Florida-based Liberty Counsel.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice said the ramifications of the ruling will reverberate nationwide.

"The decision puts the issue of same-sex marriage back on the radar screen of the American public and is certain to create additional constitutional questions about marriage – questions that will ultimately end up at the U.S. Supreme Court," Sekulow said.

The Christian Coalition's Roberta Combs called the decision "by four out-of-control left-wing judges" the worst since the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision on abortion, asserting only 24 percent support of Americans support "such an abomination" as same-sex marriage.

In their advisory opinion yesterday, the four justices who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage wrote: "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal. The bill that would allow for civil unions, but falls short of marriage, makes for unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."

The high court decided Nov. 18 homosexual couples are legally entitled to wed under the state constitution and should be allowed to apply for marriage licenses, overturning a ruling by a lower court handed down in May 2002 which said state law does not convey the right of marriage to homosexual couples.

However, the 4-3 ruling stopped short of declaring homosexual couples should be granted the licenses and did not call for them to be immediately issued to the plaintiffs in the case. Instead, the court ordered the state legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days. It granted a stay of its decision in the meantime.

Staver noted yesterday's decision requires the state legislature and the citizens of Massachusetts to confront same-sex marriage head-on.

"Civil unions are a compromise," he said. "Now that the Massachusetts court ruled it will not accept anything less than same-sex marriage, the line has been drawn in the sand."

With the ruling, the Massachusetts legislature now is set to consider an amendment legally defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

However, the earliest a constitutional amendment could be put on the ballot is 2006.

"We've heard from the court, but not from the people," Gov. Mitt Romney said in a statement. "The people of Massachusetts should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of marriage."

Staver said the November decision has spawned a huge backlash throughout the country.

On Tuesday, Ohio became the 38th state to pass a law that defines marriage as only between one man and one woman.

Only 38 states are necessary to amend the U.S. Constitution, Staver noted.

Along with Massachusetts, at least 14 states have filed legislation to ban same-sex marriage through a state constitutional amendment, including Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wisconsin.

Three other states are soon to follow: Florida, Minnesota and Texas.

The advocacy group Focus on the Family called the Massachusetts decision yesterday "the second act in a carefully orchestrated plan of judicial tyranny in that state."

"I am not surprised that these unelected judges have once again usurped power unconstitutionally, by telling the Legislature how it must meet the demands of the court's tyrannical decision in Goodridge," said Vice President Tom Minnery. "It is the constitutional duty of the Legislature, the elected representatives of the people, and not the courts, to decide the social policy for the state."

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force insisted the decision was not "judicial activism."

"Instead, this truly American decision is part of a 200-plus year tradition of our courts interpreting the law and fulfilling the constitutional promise of equality for all without fear of political retribution," said the group's executive director Matt Foreman. "This is exemplified in the court's response to the state senate's question if civil unions would suffice: 'The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.'"

Foreman said the ruling came in spite of "an extraordinary – indeed, unprecedented – campaign of intimidation and threat of culture war from the White House on down."

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, he said, "held its ground and reaffirmed that discrimination against same-sex couples in marriage rights is unconstitutional. We salute the court's courage and integrity."

But Minnery urged Congress to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment and "end this constitutional showdown between the branches of government, both federal and state."

Randy Thomasson, head of a lobby group in California, Campaign for California Families, has filed a lawsuit against a new state law that will give same-sex partners virtually all the rights of marriage without using the term. The Sacramento Superior Court is expected to rule on the case by April. The law is set to go into effect in January 2005.

Thomasson said the Massachusetts ruling "shows why some judges need to be recalled or impeached."

"When four arrogant jurists in black robes literally dream up homosexual 'marriage' and impose their subversive plan upon the people, it is cause for patriotic men, women and voters everywhere to rise up and take back their government," he said.

Some state Republican chairmen who met at the Republican National Committee in Washington last Friday said they want the White House and the Bush re-election campaign to put more emphasis on the president's opposition to same-sex marriage.

"It's clearly important to our base, along with the president's tax cuts that helped the economy recover nationally," Virginia state Chairman Kate O. Griffin told the Washington Times.

Last month, a Zogby International poll showed a majority of Massachusetts residents oppose the high court's November decision.

---

If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.

---

Related articles:

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'?

---

Special offer:

WorldNetDaily's acclaimed monthly Whistleblower magazine takes a powerfully insightful look at the institution of marriage – and the rapidly expanding movement to radically redefine, and many say, destroy it.