Primitive, Aboriginal, African, or Indian tribes only practice marriage between members of the opposite sex.

 

Now, for the first time in American history, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, the state known for its prestigious Ivy League schools, defines marriage without reference to gender or natural biology.  Marriage in Massachusetts will no longer use the discriminatory words, husband and wife, but spouse and spouse.

 

The Massachusetts Supreme Court, on Nov. 18, 2003 , by a vote of four to three, struck down all state laws limiting marriage to members of the opposite sex.  The Massachusetts legislature has 180 days to bring all laws into compliance with the Court’s ruling.  The entire opinion is published on http://www.masslaw.com/archives/ma/opin/sup/1017603.htm

 

The Ancient Greeks were right.  “Whom the god’s would destroy they first drive mad.”  Also Zechariah 12:4: “I will smite every horse with confusion, and its rider with madness.”

 

The Supreme Court states: “the government creates civil marriage.”  But, who created Massachusetts ?  We thought it was families that only agreed to laws governing heterosexual marriage.  But, now we learn it could have been founded by illegitimate, unmarried, bastards (Hebrews, 12:8, Deut. 23:2).  Of course, this would not insult them because it doesn’t matter.

 

The Justices say, “Civil marriage is created and regulated through exercise of the police power.”  In other words, they create marriage, they define marriage, and they can change marriage any time they want to.

 

Genesis 1:27 tells us, “He created them male and female” and, now, the judges say they are also created as females who think they are males, and males who think they are females.

 

What about the couples who were already married in Massachusetts ?  The Supreme Court ruling does not grandfather their marriages.  It changes them retroactively “by police power,” so they are no longer married under the original laws that joined them together.

 

In effect, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has annulled every marriage in the state.  Gender is now incidental to marriage.  Instead of the traditional definition of marriage found in every standard and legal dictionary, the new definition of marriage in Massachusetts is: “We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others.”

 

When gender is no longer a consideration in the marriage laws, then the state is no longer licensing marriage.  The State of Massachusetts createth marriage: The State of Massachusetts taketh away marriage.

 

What a marvelous display of American revolutionary constitutional freedom.  If King George could only see them now!

 

The Justices cite: "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code."  They conclude that a biologically gender based code is rooted in morality and not science.  We thought the Ivy League schools knew that belief contrary to science is either superstition or religion.

 

The need to maintain the individual rights of spouses will now negate the terms “husband” and “wife’ in all State of Massachusetts laws and documents.

 

The Justices appeal is to the 14^th Amendment and equal protection under the law.  They explain: “The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens.”

 

They reason: “Recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage, any more than recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of a different race devalues the marriage of a person who marries someone of her own race.”

 

This ignores the fact that members of the same gender can’t produce children, no matter what the race.  What does race have to do with gender?  The Justices despise marriage defined by gender.

 

What about families in Massachusetts ?  They no longer exist as father, mother, and children.  The Justices explain: “Our laws of civil marriage do not privilege procreative heterosexual intercourse between married people above every other form of adult intimacy and every other means of creating a family.”  They “believe” that heterosexual history or potential no longer defines family structure in Massachusetts .

 

Civil marriage no longer exists in Massachusetts ; they just kept the word, but threw away the meaning so that people will think they are still married when they are not.

 

Marriage that is not about he and she is not marriage.  At this point, there is no rationale for Massachusetts not to recognize pets or more than two people in a marriage, other than a matter of judicial preference.

 

What about the quality of life for children raised by father-father or mother-mother?  The Judges are God on the bench and speak from their own religion when they write: “The ‘best interests of the child’ standard does not turn on a parent's sexual orientation or marital status.”  Again, they threw away the meaning, but kept the word “family,” so that people will still think they have a family instead of a group of individuals.

 

The Declaration of Independence states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”  Massachusetts now believes these unalienable rights do not recognize biological differences in marriage.  There is no longer the unalienable right to be a husband or a wife in Massachusetts .

 

Ramifications for the removal of state recognition of marriage and families, in order to preserve equal rights, must precipitate changes in the constitutional rights of all citizens in Massachusetts .  If the legal recognition of gender is discriminatory, this standard must also apply to other genetic differences, such as size, intelligence, ability, and natural talents.

 

There will be numerous court challenges to all laws that currently recognize genetic limitations such as athletics, academics, the arts, business, employment, separation of the sexes, etc.  The Judges now call the legal recognition of genetic differences, a “moral code” that opposes “liberty for all.”

 

Actually, the State of Massachusetts took away its citizens’ unalienable rights that the Declaration of Independence says were endowed by their Creator, not the state.

 

Without marriage and families, who created the state, the state cannot stand.

.