Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Definition of Marriage Should Not Be Voted On

It just hit us again today, when we got the email alert from the Massachusetts Family Institute. (They are behind the new effort to get a marriage amendment on the ballot.) All along their cry has been, "Let the People Vote!" Their email states:

"A radical societal change such as expanding the definition of marriage is not something to be taken lightly and most definitely not something that should be decided by four unelected judges. The people of Massachusetts deserve the right to vote on marriage."

But we must confess, we never joined that chant, "Let the People Vote." Because the definition of "marriage" is NOT something that should ever be voted on.

It's not just that we distrust the people in Massachusetts, who've been more subject than the rest of the nation to an incredible barrage of powerful propaganda for the past decade or so. (We're not PC on anything else, why should we be on this?)

But we will not be bullied by the MassEquality queer activists into this corner. Calling for a vote means you've capitulated to some extent. Certain societal norms, religious truths, age-old traditions, and definitional standards should be beyond debate, and not put up to a vote.

What will we vote on next? The definition of "parent"? (Actually, we're in conflict over that one too: That's what David Parker v. Lexington Schools is all about.)

The answer is not to call for a vote to define "marriage", but to fight the tyranny of the judges who helped the queer activists push us into this corner.