Apr 25, 2006

Speaking of Rights: Let us vote!

October 10, 2005
letters@telegram.com
fax: 508 793-9313


It has become clear that the Massachusetts court in 2003 redefined marriage in an attempt to manufacture a new specific right for gays to same-sex marriage. As homosexual activist and author Michelangelo Signorile conceded in a 1993 article in Out! magazine, same-sex marriage should “redefine the institution of marriage” and gays should “transform the notion of ‘family’ altogether.” The 1-3% of the population who are gay, our family and friends, already reap the benefits of all of the individual rights we Americans hold dear – but marriage is a social and cultural institution that recognizes the social benefits of the procreation and raising of children; marriage is not an individual or group right.


If we as a free and democratic people so choose to redefine marriage, then gays would naturally lay claim to same-sex marriage, but what the state Supreme Judicial Court did in November 2003 usurped legislative authority and redefined marriage by judicial fiat. This would not have happened if in 2002, then Senate President Tom Birmingham had not unconstitutionally blocked the first citizens' initiative petition protecting marriage.


Please do not insult us as homophobes simply because we want to exercise our individual rights – the same individual rights all citizens, including gays, have – to a ballot petition to maintain the basic and historical understanding of marriage as only between one man and one woman – a right that was denied us twice; first by Birmingham, then by Justice Marshall.

Jay G

3 comments :

alban B. said...

Thanks for the posting on the marriage issue. This evening at Mahar Regional School, Orange is a meeting with Rep. Donelan to convince him the support the petition that allows the citizens of Mass to vote on keeping the traditional definition of marriage. I will attend and let you know the outcome.

alban B. said...

The meeting with Rep. Donelan-(Athol-Orange) was very lively and fruitful.

The end result was that Donelan made it very clear that he is opposed to the marriage amendment. That no matter what his constituency desires, he will vote his conscience. So again we have a Catholic who has let his conscience be formed with secular-humanist values instead of forming a correct Catholic conscience.

I had the opportunity to express to the gathering while Donelan was present, that he has a misinformed conscience that is very much opposed to the conscience of the gathering as was clearing expressed that evening.

alban B. said...

sorry for not correcting the error--it should read---"as clearly expressed"