In November of 2003, the mostly Republican-appointed Massachusetts Supreme Court "ordered" an overwhelmingly Democratic state legislature to legalize same-sex marriage, and to do so no later than May 17, 2004. In response, the Democrat legislature - which, by law, answers to the people, not the courts - ignored the court's demand. It simply refused to act.
As the GOP court's "deadline" loomed over Beacon Hill, it appeared that a constitutional crisis would be inevitable. But then, five weeks before the court's May 17th diktat, Republican Governor Mitt Romney saved the day, unilaterally issuing the following alteration to the state’s marriage license application: "Bride" and "Groom" were to be replaced by "Party A" and "Party B."
Thanks to Mitt, homosexual couples in Massachusetts immediately began planning their weddings, while equality advocates from across America rejoiced.
King Romney then issued an ultimatum to the commonwealth's justices of the peace, telling them to either begin marrying same-sex couples or else resign. Then, to mollify outraged traditional marriage advocates, Romney began citing an antiquated 1913 law (designed to prevent out-of-state interracial couples from marrying in Massachusetts if their home states object) as a way of denying marriage licenses to out-of-state homosexuals.
This political back flip, predictably, turned homosexuals' joy into anger, igniting fierce accusations of discrimination against the Romney administration - which, conveniently for Mitt, obscured the fact that he was the one who had implemented same-sex marriage across Massachusetts in the first place.
Blaming Democrats
Then, in late 2004, conservative pundits across America, ironically, began claiming that anti-gay marriage John Kerry had lost his presidential bid primarily due to those wacky Massachusetts Democrats who'd legalized same-sex marriage. Little or no mention was made in the national dialogue about the fact that GOP governors had appointed the justices behind the ruling. Little mention was made that Kerry and his party's legislature had rejected the ruling. And no mention was made that Romney had singlehandedly enforced the ruling - despite having zero constitutional authority to do so.
So the real question is, why would a conservative governor so eagerly ram same-sex marriage down the throats of his state's legislature and voters, only to turn around and campaign aggressively for a constitutional amendment to undo what he himself did? Might it have something to do with the fact that Romney needed to woo social conservatives in advance of 2008, and that the "protection of marriage" petition he so vigorously peddled just happened to be scheduled to hit the ballot on the very same day as the 2008 election?
Protect marriage from slick politicians
When will conservative voters learn that their marriages aren't safe in the hands of politicians - from any political party? And when will progressives learn that a government-blessed marriage is no blessing at all?
The truth is, holy matrimony and unholy government make for an unnatural union and a fraud. It's a marriage that never was moral and never was meant to be. So it's time that the cursed and fruitless union between marriage and state was annulled.
More articles
Dear Soldier
The Snow Scam
|
