 |
John Diggs, M.D., Opposes MFI's Amendment Scheduled for Feb. 11 John Diggs, M.D., who has been a member of the National
Advisory Council of the Family Research Council, was startled yesterday
to receive an email from them urging him to send emails to Gov.
Romney, Speaker Finneran and Senate President Travaglini in favor
of the Constitutional Amendment scheduled for February 11, which
is sponsored and promoted by the Massachusetts Family Institute. Esteemed Citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: As some of you know, I have been on the National Advisory Council of the Family Research Council. In this case, I significantly disagree with their emphasis on the February 11th marriage amendment. I am not against an amendment, but clearly this is a distant step that must be preceded by other actions. If the problem is that the judiciary branch of our tripartite government (Supreme Judicial Court) is telling the legislature to make law, then the central problem is the loss of the balance-of-powers, something the nation's Founders (and Massachusetts founders, in following suit) thought key to preventing the tyranny they had witnessed. Without first restoring the balance of power, writing another law/amendment would just give the judiciary something else to intentionally 'misinterpret.' There is nothing in the Massachusetts constitution ambiguous about marriage being one man and one woman. The key problem here is judicial tyranny "the Court", overstepping its proper bounds. All people, regardless of faith, feelings on marriage or political party should be able to get behind the need for restoration of the balance of powers. While the amendment FRC mentions is a good idea, it has several severe flaws. One, it is too late to deal with the current crisis. How long will it take to become law? Two, controversial amendments do not "pass." Part of the reason the amendment is being foisted on Massachusetts is because national organizations back this strategy on a federal level, a federal marriage amendment. This idea was not tailored to Massachusetts but is reflective of a national strategy. I think that we in Massachusetts can make our own decisions and set our own agenda. Three, it is out of sequence. We must first restrain the judiciary within its Constitutionally assigned boundaries. The Legislature must step up and meet force with .... maybe with nothing; simply ignore the SJC or pass a law removing marriage from the jurisdiction of the SJC. Fourth, the amendment is flawed in not recognizing that the Vermont alternative, civil unions, does nothing to solve the problem. Think slaves thought that "sharecropping" was better than slavery? Shakespeare famously said, "A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet." And George Orwell, in 1984 warned of the power of words to distort reality. The MassNews documents how this unwillingness to address civil unions affected California; it loudly closes the front door to an "invader" but opens wide the back door. Either way, the house is undone. Will the "Soft" Marriage Amendment Do the Job? We are citizens in a government called 'self
government.' We each can be qualified to make good decisions
if we educate ourselves. While it is wise to seek counsel, we must
make the final decision or we do not deserve to be titled 'self-governing.'
The issue is marriage this time. Everyone must recognize that the next issue the judges rule may be against their wishes; therefore, the judicial tyranny should be resisted even by homosexual marriage advocates. The most useful part of the FRC webpage is that it has addresses and phone numbers that should be used once a month by all of us. More importantly, you need your state reps' and senators' numbers. Massachusetts Legislature info They are the ones who need to be more afraid of you than they are of homosexual activists (many of whom do not practice homosexuality but support sexual libertinism, at any cost). The power is in the hands of the many in a democratic republic. Not a prelate (neither Roman Catholic or Protestant, official or unofficial), not the governor, not the unelected judges of the SJC. Use it, or lose it. To lose it would be most ironic in Massachusetts where we still have the Freedom Trail, and talk about the 'shot heard around the world.' Do you recall why it was heard 'around the world?' I reiterate that I am not against an amendment. When undertaking such a monumental endeavor, one should do as much as possible to ensure it will garner the desired results. I don't see the desired results coming from the current version. The purpose, to protect marriage, needs much more immediate and direct action. My suggestion: 1) Petition the government for resolution of grievances. Write each of your reps every few weeks. I suggest you demand they repulse the action of the SJC and that they tell you how to impeach the four judges who signed the majority decision. 2) Talk about the topic frequently in the street and
especially in the Church. If the Church cannot be salt (preservative)
and light (show Truth) on this issue, it deserves the fate of salt
without flavor as spoken by our Lord in the Holy Scripture, Matthew
5:13: I am very interested in any feedback you have to offer. The email that Dr. Diggs received
from FRC was "News Headlines", which can be found at:
http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=NW03L35&f=WU03L11
|
