The presidents of four of the leading pro-family groups in the U.S. spoke out against the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts on May 17. All four agreed that the issuance of gay marriage licenses have been forced upon the people of Massachusetts by activists judges, and all four adamantly called for the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would effectively void the licenses.
"The imposition of homosexual 'marriage' upon some states and potentially upon the country as a whole is a clear and present danger right now only because of the arrogance of activist judges, not because of any truly democratic decision-making at the state level. When most supporters of states' rights or federalism use the term, they are referring to the right of states to determine their own laws and social policies through democratic means. That is not what happened in Massachusetts, wrote the president of the Family Research Council Tony Perkins.
On May 18, Perkins gathered state lawmakers across the country to the Capitol in a call to swiftly pass a Constitutional amendment to protect state marriage laws.
It is clear from media reports that homosexual couples residing outside of Massachusetts are 'getting married' in the Bay state so they can return home to challenge their state's marriage laws. Anyone who thinks the other 49 states are safe hasn't been following the legal circus currently going on in courtrooms across the country, the statement read.
"Marriage is a concept so fundamental to our society that we cannot succeed as a nation with multiple definitions of its meaning. We must insure a uniform national definition and this is not the first time we've had to do so. During the 19th century when Utah sought admission to the union as a state, Congress set one unique condition that had to be met before Utah's application for statehood would even be considered. The federal government declared that Utah would have to legally renounce the practice of polygamy -- indeed, expressly forbid it -- in order to be admitted as a state. So, there is clearly precedence for the federal government taking a firm and decisive role when the fundamental definition of marriage is at stake, Perkins continued.
"Marriage should not be up for experimentation. Thirty-eight states have done what they can do to protect marriage. The question today is will lawmakers in Washington recognize and protect the express desire of two-thirds of the 50 states -- that marriage remain the union of one man and one woman."
Roberta Combs, President of the Christian Coalition also released a statement on the Abomination in Massachusetts and the need for the Federal Marriage Amendment.
"Traditional marriage has been dealt a severe blow beginning with so-called legalized homosexual 'marriages' tomorrow in the state of Massachusetts, an abomination which must not be allowed to continue. Traditional marriage is one of the last obstacles to the complete normalization of homosexuality in America. When a majority of Americans, 68% in a recent "Time/CNN" poll, agree that marriage is a union only between a man and a woman, it is time for Congress to rein in these judicial tyrants who are making these radical judicial decisions. The Federal Marriage Amendment is crucial in giving back to elected officials the ability to define marriage instead of activist judges who are supposed to interpret law and not make it, Combs said in the Statement.
The Christian Coalition is the largest Christian grassroots organization with more than 2 million supporters. The above statement was made on May 16th.
Kristian M. Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, also issued a statement condemning the same sex marriages in the state.
"Just because it has been ruled legal does not make same sex marriage right or healthy for society at large" declared Mineau. "Traditional marriage is the foundation of our society. It is the proven best way to raise healthy, stable children for future generations. Homosexuals have the right to live any way they choose, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for the rest of society.
"Massachusetts Family Institute, and the groups we are aligned with in the Coalition for Marriage, will intensify our efforts to amend the Massachusetts Constitution to clearly define marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman. We also endorse passage of a federal marriage amendment."
He said, "this is a pivotal issue in MFI's work to strengthen, protect and preserve marriage and the family. We are engaged in a cultural war and will persevere in our efforts. We vigorously advocate traditional marriage and seek to establish in the US Constitution the definition of marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman. This fight is not over; the debate continues for the sake of families, children and future generations."
Mineaur also called on the people of Massachusetts to protect traditional marriage.
"Regardless of one's opinion of the definition of marriage, we believe the Supreme Judicial Court violated the rights of Massachusetts citizens by redefining marriage and thereby changing the
Commonwealth's Constitution. Only the vote of the people can amend the Constitution, and an awakened electorate will make that point clear in November, he wrote.
Meanwhile, the president of the Campaign for California Families, Randy Thomasson, spoke at a news conference in Sacramento on May 17, calling the events in Massachusetts an attack upon marriage.
Marriage is for a man and a woman, a natural, unique and sacred institution to which no other relationship can compare, said Thomasson. What the corrupt mayor of San Francisco failed to do, the corrupt judges in Massachusetts have succeeded in doing attacking and destroying the special distinction of marriage for a man and a woman, the foundation of family.
This is a sad day for America, Thomasson said. The sexual and judicial tyranny in Massachusetts is certain to increase peoples disgust for the aggressive homosexual agenda and voters distrust of our system of government. Fortunately, Californians already passed Proposition 22 to keep marriage for a man and a woman, so we enjoy greater protection here than the relatively powerless voters of Massachusetts.