Exposing MA-rital fraud

By David Benkof
DavidBenkof@aol.com

I do not believe that in our democracy, anything goes. There are certain maneuvers that while legal, are contrary to the spirit of fair play in a democratic republic. Advocates of "marriage equality" have repeatedly shown that they will try any strategy, no matter how sneaky or dishonest, to achieve their goal of redefining marriage.

I'll give just one example. During the campaign for the nation's second-ever statewide non-discrimination law based on sexual orientation, in Massachusetts in 1989, gay and lesbian activists told everyone who asked that the proposed law would never lead to same-sex marriage. In fact, they tried to prove how serious they were by writing into the law the following sentence: "Nothing in this act shall be construed so as to legitimize or validate a ‘homosexual marriage.’" Massachusetts voters and legislators assumed the gay and lesbian community was acting in good faith, and in the interest of fairness, the non-discrimination law passed.

One of the major reasons Massachusetts defenders of traditional marriage gave to oppose a redefinition of marriage in their state is that people in Massachusetts believe homosexuality is immoral. What is the Goodridge v. Massachusetts decision's explanation of why they rejected that reasonable rationale? They offered only a single sentence, which I'm quoting directly from the decision: "Massachusetts has a strong affirmative policy of preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." That's the only reason the court gave, and the most prominent piece of evidence they cited was the non-discrimination law mentioned above that the voters of Massachusetts were disingenuously told would never lead to same-sex marriage.

Come to think of it, I do not see why the four justices who approved the Goodridge decision should not be arrested and put on trial for violating Massachusetts law, which clearly states "Nothing in this act shall be construed so as to legitimize or validate" same-sex marriage. Chief Justice Margaret Hilary Marshall and three other Massachusetts jurists unmistakably construed that very act so as to legitimize and validate same-sex marriage. That was kind of their whole point. Doesn't it undermine our legal system when we fail to punish people who flagrantly violate the law just because they wear robes? I thought the whole point of Watergate was that no one is above the law.

Any fair-minded Massachusetts proponent of same-sex marriage who believes in open democracy should reject the Goodridge decision as fundamentally fraudulent, and advocate for a statewide vote on "marriage equality," or at least a brand-new decision. Any new decision must not use as evidence a law everyone agrees was passed with the assurance that it would never lead to same-sex marriage in order to argue that the people of the Bay State support same-sex marriage. If a court had outlawed same-sex marriage with a similarly outrageous and anti-democratic argument, I would be the first to condemn it as illegitimate. To my knowledge not a single gay or lesbian activist (besides me) has ever expressed a similar opinion about Goodridge. Are "marriage equality" advocates so selfish that they feel winning is more important than playing fair?

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) pending before Congress similarly contains a provision supported by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) which says ENDA won't undermine the male-female federal definition of marriage. Could someone please explain to me why an American citizen who opposes discrimination based on sexual orientation but does not want to see the longstanding definition of marriage change should trust Congressman Frank, who has trumpeted Goodridge, when he says ENDA will not lead to same-sex marriage? If Frank and other marriage equality advocates feel the Massachusetts bait-and-switch was a perfectly acceptable means of achieving their goals (and I see no evidence any of them ever rejected Goodridge), don't people who favor honest lawmaking have no choice but to start rejecting all future measures proposed by such people?

Am I missing something? I really want to know. Anyone who can show me flaws in my logic is invited to send a respectful message to my E-mail address listed above.

Labels: Goodridge, Marriage

posted by David Benkof at 1:41 AM | link

<< Home