4 non-elected Massachusetts Officials April 24, 2006
4 non-elected Massachusetts officials are doing what the state legislatures and the citizens of states have done in 44 states. 19 of the 44 states have allowed (6 more will allow in 2006 elections) citizens to actively and directly participate in the governing their states. This is to define and give meaning to marriage. Marriage is the relationship between one man and one woman.
Consistent in Goodridge, the legal challenge for same-sex/gay marriage beginning in the written decision by Suffolk Superior Court Justice Connolly has been the acknowledgement by judges, both in Superior Court and the Supreme Judicial Court, (Chief Justice Marshall) that the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts delegates to the Legislation, not the judiciary the authority to regulate marriage.
Upon entering the office of a legislator, he or she takes an oath of office. Taking this oath, the legislator is swearing allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, agreeing to and supporting the laws and constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
When the issue of marriage has arisen in the Massachusetts legislature the discussion has been to maintain the status quo, marriage is the relationship between one man and one woman. The proposed citizen’s petition initiative currently before the Massachusetts legislature is to affirm and validate the status quo, marriage is the relationship between one man and one woman. The vote that needs to be taken is an up or down, yes or no vote, affirming and validating the status quo, marriage is the relationship between one man and one woman. The burden of proof is upon those who propose and advocate for change. When will there be an actual direct discussion on same-sex/gay marriage? When will those who oppose maintaining the status quo, marriage is the relationship between one man and one woman, propose same-sex/gay marriage legislation and allow for an up or down, yes or no vote before the entire Massachusetts legislature? Why is the discussion of same-sex/gay marriage in the Massachusetts legislature only being held within the context of maintaining the status quo, marriage is the relationship between one man and one woman?
How or what qualifies gays and lesbians to be a minority? This is one of the arguments used by those who advocate and support same-sex/gay marriage, that is gays and lesbians are a minority. So, by not allowing them to marry is discrimination. The United Sates Supreme Court does not grant homosexuals, gays and lesbians suspect class status. I seek affirmation and validation as a former homosexual. Former homosexuals, former lesbians, and ex-gays have the same societal status as homosexuals, gays and lesbians once did. But that too is changing, society is increasingly accepting the identity of those who have left homosexuality former homosexuals, former lesbians, and ex-gays. Do they have status or qualify as a minority?
In the academic and or scientific literature homosexuals, gays and lesbians are referred to as sexual minorities. Those groups supporting and advocating for homosexuality identify themselves with other sexual minority groups using the initials GLBT. Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender. Among these groups there are those who identify as queer.
In some sense, being queer is not so much identifying as something as it is identifying as what someone is not. Such negative and reflexive identification enables such a disparate group of individuals to come under one banner; yet, it paradoxically prevents that group from taking unitary action. (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.55-56)
Homosexual, homophile, gay, lesbian, queer. Those who choose to self-identify around one characteristic, same-sex erotic attraction, have used various and changing names to identify themselves. And over time they have encouraged and allowed other groups to associate with them in an ever growing and expanding big tent. One thing all these groups claim as to have in common involve sexuality.
"When you’re very different, and people hate you for it, this is what you do: first you get your foot in the door, by being as similar as possible; then, and only then-when your one little difference is accepted-can you start dragging in your other peculiarities, one by one. You hammer in the wedge narrow end first. As the saying goes, Allow the camel’s nose beneath your tent, and his whole body will soon follow. (Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.146)
These two quotes (above and below) are from a book published in 1989, and the title is a very accurate description of the book itself. The book is written to help gays gain acceptance in society. The context for the quote above is to encourage fringe gay groups (drag queens, leather men, bondage/SM etc.) to voluntarily withdraw from public appearance at gay parades, marches, and rallies. But at the same time allowing them to be a part of public gay life in the future once a homosexual’s one little difference is accepted. Same-sex/gay marriage furthers the continuation of the normalization and legitimization of homosexuality. Already we have GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender), who/what group is next.
The two authors of this book self-identify themselves as gay. Marshall Kirk graduated from Harvard University in 1980 and Hunter Madsen is a public-communications expert who has taught on the Harvard University faculty. The quote below is about an internal fatal flaw in the gay lifestyle itself.
In short, the gay lifestyle - if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle - it just doesn’t work: it doesn’t serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people’s natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. While it’s impulse to provide an exhaustive analytic list of all the root causes and aggravants of this failure, we can asservative at least some of the major causes. Many have been dissected, above, as elements of the Ten Misbehaviors; it only remains to discuss the failure of the gay community to provide a viable alternative to the heterosexual family. (Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.363)