Matt Barber

With its 2003 Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court circumvented the constitutional process and arbitrarily imposed “same-sex marriage” on the people of Massachusetts in what amounted to a brazen and contemptuous act of judicial activism. Now members of the liberal Massachusetts state legislature have surrendered to the demands of the militant homosexual lobby and have betrayed both the citizens of Massachusetts and the democratic process by preventing voters from weighing in on this crucial issue.

Prior to Goodridge, the concept of a man “marrying” a man or a woman “marrying” a woman was widely and properly considered preposterous. However, with their decision in Goodridge, four of the court’s seven social mad scientists have zapped artificial life into a cultural “gay-marriage” Frankenstein monster. And that radical and bizarre new concept has been terrorizing the countryside every since.

After the Massachusetts Supreme Court — through judicial fiat — made Massachusetts the only state to recognize “same-sex marriage” by miraculously divining that the framers of the state constitution really intended that Patrick Henry could marry Henry Patrick, many in Massachusetts — embarrassed by the court’s unprecedented leftist extremism — felt that their state had become a laughingstock and initiated the constitutional process in an effort to undo this court forced insanity.

Recognizing that “if everything is marriage … nothing is marriage at all,” the good folks of Massachusetts decided to fight back and to defend the cultural cornerstone of legitimate marriage.

In 2005, supporters of marriage accumulated enough petition signatures to send a constitutional amendment to the Massachusetts legislature which, if put to a vote by the people and passed, would have properly restored the definition of marriage to one man – one woman.

At that time, lawmakers refused to take up the initiative for a vote. But, after it became abundantly clear that by ignoring the measure they were shirking their constitutional duty, the passive-aggressive patsies begrudgingly got around to doing their job.

However, in order for the amendment to make it onto the 2008 ballot, at least 50 legislators had to vote in support of the measure in two consecutive sessions. But despite broad support and almost two hundred thousand petition signatures, lawmakers thumbed their collective nose at their constituents and voted by just over a three-to-one margin (151-45) during the second session to deny the citizens of Massachusetts a voice.

Matt Barber

Matt Barber is founder and editor-in chief of He is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war. (Follow Matt on Twitter: @jmattbarber).