Gay 'marriage' issue explodes in U.S.
Law-breaking municipalities push same-sex 'marriage' agenda

The Nov. 17, 2003 decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court to "legislate" homosexual marriages into existence in that state has unleashed a wave of lawlessness by homosexual activists who hold municipal offices across the United States.

Even though the Massachusetts court edict redefining marriage does not come into effect until May 17, that has not stopped mayors or city clerks in San Francisco, Calf., New Paltz, N.Y., Portland, Ore., Sandoval County, N.M., and Asbury Park, N.J., from attempting to offer marriage licences to homosexual couples.

The San Francisco "weddings" attracted the most attention, with as many as 3,700 couples rushing to city hall in the month of February to get licences at the urging of newly elected activist mayor Gavin Newsom. Among the pretenders to the institution of marriage were loud-mouthed talk show host and failed comedienne Rosie O'Donnell and a female friend.

Of course, the illegal action forced the hand of celebrity California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), who ordered his attorney-general to seek an injunction in the courts to stop the scofflaws at city hall. The California Supreme Court ordered San Francisco to stop issuing the illegal licences immediately, pending a summer-time review of the legality of the city's actions.

The Alliance Defence Fund is a pro-family group that filed suit in California against the illegal marriage licences. ADF Counsel Benjamin Bull said, ""The California Constitution does not require that persons be treated similarly if they are, in fact, different. Uncontroversial social science research shows that male/male unions and female/female unions are substantively different. If those unions are different from each other, they cannot both be the same as male/female unions. The San Francisco mayor and county clerk assume that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to be treated the same as opposite-sex couples despite their differences."

The New York attorney-general has taken matters a step farther, not only issuing an opinion that such "marriages" are illegal, but also criminally charging New Paltz Mayor Jason West with a misdemeanor offence of solemnizing a marriage without a licence. Similarly, Asbury Park, N.J. city officials have been threatened with criminal charges should they issue any more licences or perform ceremonies.

Similar actions have been taken by state governments in other trouble-spots, but nowhere is the debate more intense than in Boston, where the state legislature is engaged in deliberations over a state constitutional amendment to protect marriage from redefinition. Thousands of protesters on either side of the issue have been making their voices heard on Beacon Hill, home to the gold-domed state legislative building.

Several proposals to protect marriage or promote so-called civil unions as a compromise are working their ways through the legislature. However, the process will likely not see resolution until at least 2006, when Massachusetts voters have the final say in a state-wide referendum on the issue.

Tony Perkins of the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council, said, "The Massachusetts legislature took the next step in wrestling control of this vital public policy issue away from unelected judges. The amendment is not what we want; it prohibits homosexual 'marriage,' but creates civil unions. However the fight is not over, as the legislature will return on March 29 to take up the debate for a third time. The legislature will then have the opportunity to make changes to the amendment prior to casting a final vote.

"One change we are supporting is a bifurcation of the amendment, which would divide the amendment into two: one defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman, and the other creating civil unions. Under this arrangement, marriage could be protected and civil unions turned down."

That is critical, said Robert Knight of Concerned Women For America. he added voters must beware, because the Massachusetts civil union compromise proposal is just as dangerous as redefining marriage. He said, "The 'gay' activists themselves have told us over and over that 'civil unions' are merely a stepping stone to 'gay marriage.' Some observers predict that the whole idea of marriage will eventually become passe if same-sex unions gain legal status."