Aboriginal, African, or Indian tribes only practice marriage between
members of the opposite sex.
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.
will no longer use the
discriminatory words, husband and wife, but spouse and spouse.
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
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
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.”
Supreme Court states: “the government creates civil marriage.”
But, who created
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.
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.
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.
about the couples who were already married in
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.
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
is: “We construe civil
marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the
exclusion of all others.”
gender is no longer a consideration in the marriage laws, then the state
is no longer licensing marriage. The
createth marriage: The State
of Massachusetts taketh away marriage.
a marvelous display of American revolutionary constitutional freedom.
If King George could only see them now!
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.
need to maintain the individual rights of spouses will now negate the
terms “husband” and “wife’ in all State of
laws and documents.
Justices appeal is to the 14th Amendment and equal protection
under the law. They explain: “The
Constitution affirms the
dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of
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.”
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.
about families in
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
marriage no longer exists in
; they just kept the word, but
threw away the meaning so that people will think they are still married
when they are not.
that is not about he and she is not marriage.
At this point, there is no rationale for
not to recognize pets or more
than two people in a marriage, other than a matter of judicial preference.
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
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.”
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
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
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.
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.”
the State of
took away its citizens’
unalienable rights that the Declaration of Independence says were endowed
by their Creator, not the state.
marriage and families, who created the state, the state cannot stand.