“Today's ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. 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.” – President George W. Bush, Feb. 4, 2004

On February 4, 2004 , the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled by a vote of 4-3 that any attempt by the State Legislature to bypass the court's recent same-sex “marriage” decision by granting civil union partnerships will not be acceptable. The closely divided court has once again decreed that the Massachusetts constitution requires homosexual couples be given full marriage rights.

This decision by the Massachusetts court leaves no doubt as to what is at stake in Massachusetts . Either the institution of marriage will be protected, or it will be redefined out of existence. On February 11, 2004 , the state legislature will vote on the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment, which would give the people of Massachusetts —rather than four activist judges—the power to decide whether marriage will be protected or deconstructed.

By its action on February 4, the Massachusetts court has left few options for state legislators who were hoping to bypass the controversial debate by simply granting homosexual couples civil union partnerships. The legislators in Massachusetts will now have to decide whether the people will be ruled by an unaccountable judiciary, or whether they will be given the power to overrule the court's decree.

Those who oppose this judicial fiat are not just fighting to preserve marriage in Massachusetts ; this case will determine the future of marriage throughout America . To put it simply, the people of Massachusetts and their legislators must decide whether their constituents will continue to be governed by elected representatives, or whether they will consent to be ruled by “dictators in black robes,” as one writer wrote recently.

If same-sex couples “marry” in Massachusetts and move to other states, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will be left vulnerable to the same federal courts that have banned the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance and sanctioned partial-birth abortion. This decision leaves no doubt that we must immediately pass a federal marriage amendment.

By taking civil unions off the table, the judges in Massachusetts have drastically narrowed the focus: It's full-blown same-sex “marriage” or nothing. On February 11, Massachusetts legislators must vote “yes” to allow the people to vote on a constitutional amendment.

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's editorial in The Wall Street Journal on February 5 was good news for Americans who oppose the extremist position that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has taken. Gov. Romney noted that previous executive branches have faced such quandaries in the past when he wrote, “With the Dred Scott case, decided four years before he took office, President Lincoln faced a judicial decision that he believed was terribly wrong and [that] badly misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution.

“Here is what Lincoln said: ‘If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.'

“By its decision,” Romney continued, “the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts circumvented the legislature and the executive, and assumed to itself the power of legislating. That's wrong.”

He is right. But until the Constitutional Convention has been held and the voters have rendered a verdict, Governor Romney will face a stiff challenge if he refuses to enforce the court's demand that marriage licenses for gay couples be issued.

FRC Chooses Federal Marriage Amendment Language

The Family Research Council reports that it has been actively involved in ongoing deliberations with the White House, members of Congress and leaders of pro-family groups across the nation to determine the very best language possible in passing a federal marriage amendment. FRC has decided to support Rep. Marilyn Musgrave's (R-CO) Federal Marriage Amendment (H.J. Res. 56) which reads, “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”

This is critical. The language of the amendment must be constructed so as to ensure that the democratic process at the state level will continue to determine how marriage benefits are allocated. The amendment must also be constructed so as to restrict courts from distorting existing constitutional or statutory law into a requirement that marital status be reallocated according to judicial arbitrary order.

FRC Action Launches Newspaper Ads in Massachusetts
FRC Action, the legislative action arm of Family Research Council and a member of the Massachusetts-based Coalition for Marriage, launched a series of newspaper ads in Massachusetts on February 5, calling on the State Legislature there to support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment.  The amendment, which would allow Massachusetts citizens to decide the definition of marriage rather than four un-elected judges, will be voted on February 11th.

The ads were to run February 5 in five newspapers, The Boston Globe, Worcester Telegram and Gazette, Springfield Republican, Patriot Ledger and the Lowell Sun.   The same ad was scheduled to appear in the Cape Cod Times on February 6.

“These ads tell the people of Massachusetts to make sure their voices are heard,” said FRC Action President, Tony Perkins.  “As a former two-term state legislator, I understand and appreciate the way our nation was set up; it is the people's representatives, not an un-elected judiciary that decides the public policy of the state [our emphasis].  The citizens of Massachusetts must wrestle back their power from the Supreme Judicial Court , and approving the Marriage Affirmation & Protection Amendment is the only way to do it.”