The Massachusetts Supreme Court last Tuesday (18 November 2003) ruled that gay couples have the right to marry under the state’s Constitution and it gave the state legislature 180 days to change the law to make same-sex marriages possible.  This 4-3 decision was the first in which a state high court within the US had ruled that homosexuals are constitutionally entitled to marry.  It will reverberate through the nation.  How should we think about this?

• First, the case itself.  The Chief Justice, Margaret H. Marshall, wrote that the “question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.  We conclude that it may not.  The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals.  It forbids the creation of second-class citizens.”  In defending current laws, Massachusetts officials had argued that the main purpose of marriage was procreation, that heterosexual marriage was best for child-rearing, and that gay marriage would impose a financial burden on the state.  However, Justice Marshall brushed aside the arguments, contending that the state “has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.”  Most analysts of the Court’s opinion argue that the Court intends that full-fledged marriage be extended to gays and lesbians.  Because the decision is based on state law, the ruling cannot be appealed to the US Supreme Court and it cannot be overturned by the legislature.  The only recourse is to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage, which could take as long as three years.  The decision resulted from a lawsuit filed by at least 14 people who, as couples, had filed the suit because they were denied marriage licenses in 2001.  Finally, as the legislature considers how to respond in the next 180 days, it will most likely consider several options:  Amend the Constitution to ban gay marriages, a bill to consider civil unions and a bill that would allow same-sex marriage.  With a Republican governor, Mitt Romney, who opposes the Court’s decision, and a legislature that is largely Democratic, but Catholic, the politics of this issue remain tricky.  Added to the political culture of Massachusetts is the fact that the Catholic Church strongly opposes same-sex marriages.  So, no one can realistically predict how the legislature will resolve the issue over the next 180 days.

• Second is the question, what effect did the US Supreme Court’s decision this past June on the Texas sodomy law, Lawrence v. Texas, have on this decision?  I argued on the program this past summer that the Lawrence decision would redefine the sexual orientation issue by centering the debate on rights, not ethics, for it claimed that sexuality issues are really issues of human rights and autonomy.  Therefore, not surprisingly, the second paragraph of Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion included a quotation from the Lawrence decision:  “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.”  Further, in language consistent with the Lawrence case, the Massachusetts Court ruled that “It is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage.”  The plaintiffs, Marshall argued, “seek only to be married, not to undermine the institution of civil marriage.  The marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason.”  Finally, in terms of the US Supreme Court, there is no doubt that this ruling will set off a whole new round of litigation.  The federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 anticipated this development by providing that no state shall be required to acknowledge another state’s recognition of same-sex marriage.  However, the law has gone untested in the absence of any state’s endorsement of same-sex marriage.  With 37 states having adopted laws or constitutional provisions defining marriage as between a man and a woman, same-sex couples with Massachusetts marriage licenses will undoubtedly challenge the 37 state laws and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.  Once again, we will see the judiciary decide the fate of one of the most basic and fundamental institutions of civilization. 

• Third, the matter of same-sex marriages is now a major political issue for 2004 and a polarizing one as well.  It has the potential to put the Democratic Party at a disadvantage because that party is most identified with pro-gay issues and the majority of Americans are not for such unions.  For that reason, most of the Democratic presidential candidates went to great lengths to emphasize that they oppose gay marriages, not gay rights, and yet stood opposed to any constitutional amendment barring gay marriage.  Further, it will no doubt galvanize support for President Bush, who has consistently opposed same-sex unions and has so stated many times.  Therefore, it will probably aid him in his quest for reelection.  Polls show consistently that about 60% of Americans oppose same-sex unions.  That opposition among religions conservatives swells to six to one. 

• Fourth, how do we think about these issues as Christians?  Within our culture there is no longer consensus on how to view or even define marriage.  What is marriage for?  Is it for procreation?  Sex?  Property distribution?  Religion?  The debate over how, and why marriage began, and its purpose today, is as contentious as any other cultural issue in America.  Indeed, Western Civilization has collapsed one model of marriage rooted in 5,000 years of history, where gendered identities are relatively clear, but is now offering no new model to follow.  Therefore, we do not know where we are going as a civilization.  Where is the anchor?  As a Christian, there is only one way to answer that question.  We must go back to the Creation Ordinance of God in Genesis 1 and 2.  That Ordinance makes it clear that marriage is an institution created by God between a man and a woman.  Marriage is an institution that creates a male-female bond, a union that is sexually, relationally, emotionally, psychologically and spiritually complementary.  Although one of its purposes is procreation, there is this greater purpose of God creating the human race in two grand streams, male and female, and that His purpose is that these two grand streams merge in a marital union, procreate and serve God in their unique, individual integrity.  A monogamous, heterosexual, permanent union is God’s standard and any aberration, whether it is adultery, pre-marital cohabitation, bestiality, bigamy, polygamy or homosexuality, violates that standard.  From God’s perspective same-sex unions violate His Creation Ordinance.

• Finally, a word about the judiciary in this nation.  The decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court is truly outrageous.  Four judges (from a 4-3 decision) have made a decision to reshape an institution that is rooted in 5,000 years of human history, tied to a heritage rooted deep in the Judeo-Christian ethic and is arguably the most important institution to civilization.  For the intellectually honest, this is judicial arrogance and a judicial usurpation of power.  Further, by ordering the Massachusetts legislature only 180 days to fix the “problem” is way beyond any understanding of the separation of power doctrine.  The judiciary is not accountable to anyone and is asserting an authority beyond any reasonable understanding of law.  A radical redefinition of civilization’s most basic institution must be the work of the legislature or at the national level, the Congress.  For that reason, I have changed my mind on the question of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as an institution legally defined as between a man and a woman.  We are at the point in our history as a nation, that we need such an amendment to the US Constitution to protect us from the judicial arrogance demonstrated by the Massachusetts Supreme Court.  Such arrogance cannot stand and only such an amendment will stop it.  This grand social experiment of redefining civilization’s most basic institution must stop.  All social science evidence indicates the disastrous effect such redefinition is having on children (see last week’s program).  Further, such radical experimentation destroys the very fabric of human sexuality and even what it means to be human.  Only a constitutional amendment that reflects the 5,000 years of human history and an ethic rooted in our Judeo-Christian faith can salvage this civilization.  To allow this radical social experiment to continue is to sow the seeds of our own self-destruction.

See news articles by Pam Belluck, Adam Nagourney and Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times (19 November 2003) and analysis in “The Week in Review” by Tamar Lewin and Elisabeth Bumiller in the New York Times (23 November 2003).

Back to top

AL QAEDA ATTACKS TURKEY

Over the last two weeks, al Qaeda has attacked a major synagogue in Istanbul, the British consulate, killing the British consular general, and a major British bank in Istanbul.   Together these attacks have killed dozens and wounded hundreds.  Why has al Qaeda attacked Turkey? 

• Obviously, the attacks are aimed at the pro-Western secular axis that the US and Britain are trying to drive through the region with the Iraq war.  Such an axis would create a swath of territory friendly to the West from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf.  Further, Turkey is the only Muslim member of NATO and has carefully guarded its pro-Western, European-style secular political culture.  Further, Turkey was the first among Muslim nations to recognize Israel and has developed extensive ties with it since then.  It has been a model NATO member and has tried, so far unsuccessfully, to join the European Union.

• The religion-inspired wars of the 1990s drew some young Turks north to Bosnia, Chechnya and Afghanistan.  In such places, these young Turks were exposed to the radical, ideological zeal of al Qaeda.  These radicals are now attacking their own land of Turkey.  The government has waffled in its support of the US-British war on Iraq and remains somewhat fragile.  The al Qaeda extremists would want nothing more than to bring down the Turkish government and destroy its pro-Western political culture.

Al Qaeda has, therefore, decided to make war on Turkey, killing Muslim Turks to force the government and the culture to abandon its pro-Western ties and defeat America’s efforts to remake this part of the world.  In many ways, al Qaeda would like to turn the clock back to before Kemal Ataturk’s dream of a secular, modern, pro-Western nation.  It cannot succeed.

See Craig Smith in the New York Times (21 November 2003).

Back to top