It wasn't what you think
You know, the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court didn't do what so many people said it did. It did not reverse the discrimination that prevented homosexuals from getting married. In fact, homosexuals have been able to get married all along; no law prevented that. That's because marriage is the union between a man and a woman and gays and lesbians have always been able to marry someone, as long as he or she is the opposite sex.
What the Mass. court did was change the meaning of the word "marriage." Of course, saying something is so, doesn't make it so. The court could decide to redefine the meaning of "mother" to include men, but all the judicial rulings in the world won't allow me to bear children. This is why people are saying that the court's ruling, taken to its logical end, simply removes all meaning from the word "marriage" so that by meaning nothing, it means everything: polygamy, polyamory, incest, bestiality. If marriage doesn't mean what thousands of years of human civilization says it means, then it means anything.
This is the extreme of judicial activism: No longer content to redefine law or write new ones, something which is clearly outside their constitutional jurisdiction, the courts are now re-writing language and re-defining the foundations of civilization. Unless the people-- the vast majority of whom do not agree with judicial activism, but remain like silent sheep nonetheless-- wake up and demand action, then we continue the slide into oblivion. But if the people do act, we can still salvage what remains of civilization.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!