A 'marriage' proposal

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

By the judicial fiat of four activist judges, homosexual couples are now allowed to marry in Massachusetts. Monday, May 17 was both the culmination of the democratic process run amok, as well as a portent of what could come.

Forget, for a moment, arguments over civil rights and consider the chaos. So far, 12 of Massachusetts' 1,200 judges have resigned in protest. Gov. Mitt Romney said he will enforce the state law barring out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriages would not be legal in their home state. City clerks responded by saying they would ignore the governor. In New York, where homosexual "marriage" is illegal, Gov. George Pataki has said he agrees with Mr. Romney on the out-of-state question. Yet, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said he might ignore the law, also.

Meanwhile, lawsuits have been filed in several states on behalf of homosexuals seeking the right to "marry," with more likely to arise from the Massachusetts fiasco. In June, a federal appeals court will decide on an injunction to stay the November Massachusetts ruling that started this mess, which could pave the way to the Supreme Court. The Massachusetts legislature will vote on a state constitutional amendment in 2006 banning same-sex marriage, and on Monday President Bush reiterated his call for a federal amendment.

Yes, thanks to four Massachusetts judges, the genie is not only out of the bottle; it's dancing on our heads.

There is good news, however. Despite the shrill efforts of same-sex "marriage" supporters to draw parallels to the civil rights movement, 55 percent of Americans still oppose gay "marriage." This includes quite a few Democrats, as well. In an ABCNEWS/Washington Post survey earlier this year, 46 percent of Democrats oppose same-sex "marriage," as well as 50 percent of independents. Just a brief glance at Ohio, a battleground state this year, shows that the issue may be even more lopsided than national polls suggest. For instance, the Weekly Standard reported earlier this month that on the topic of same-sex marriage 43 percent of Ohio swing voters would cast a ballot for Mr. Bush, 26 percent for Sen. John Kerry, who opposes a federal amendment. Among undecided voters in Ohio, 51 percent said they would vote for the president and only 8 percent for Mr. Kerry. Go a little farther afield, the results are the same. A Newsweek poll found that 55 percent of voters in Oregon (a Gore state in the 2000 election) oppose gay "marriage."

Since both homosexual and judicial activists refused to abide by the democratic process, they have forced the need for a constitutional amendment. It didn't have to be this way. Now that we're here, though, Mr. Bush should elevate his support of amending the Constitution as a definitive election-year issue. Judging by the numbers alone, it wouldn't be a losing proposition.