On November 17, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court issued a ruling to allow same-sex marriage in that state, and demanded that the state legislature enact laws to accommodate such marriages. On February 4, 2004 the Massachusetts high court reaffirmed this decision by ruling that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples are constitutional. This is some of the worst judicial activism in memory. Based upon the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, this judicial activism could well be imposed upon other states, including Utah -- requiring us to legally recognize same-sex marriages performed in a state such as Massachusetts. It is difficult to imagine a more serious threat to the traditional definitions of marriage and family upon which so much of our society is based. That is why I have consistently cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act.
This legislation will define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Additionally, this bill allows for voters and legislatures, rather than non-elected judges, to determine if they wish to grant civil types of unions in individual states, without imposing on the rights of other states.
Return to Issues
