A BLOG BY ALAN CHAMBERS

Massachusetts Marriage Affirmation & Protection Amendment

Alan Chambers Testifies Before the Massachusetts Judiciary Committee

Honorable Co-Chairs and Members of the Massachusetts Judiciary Committee:

My name is Alan Chambers. I am an independence loving and voting citizen of the United States of America. I am a lover of freedom and a defender to the death of every person's God created right to choose for themselves what kind of life they desire to lead, liberties they strive to take and happiness's they yearn to pursue. It is every individual's right to govern themselves in a manner in which they best see fit. Making right and wrong choices is a developmental part of becoming a responsible adult able to think for oneself.

A wise friend once said that rules are for babies; mature adults are able to moderate themselves. The United States of America is becoming a nation of court mandated do's and don'ts. Our culture is redefining right and wrong based on these new directives. As we come to rely on and live by these new rules, Americans are digressing in their maturity and ability to assume personal responsibility. Forcing every big and small battle into the courts is creating an increasingly childish society dependent on the court to parent us. We are signing away our God given freedom to choose, a right that our forefathers died to give us. Maturity is most tangibly seen when, although we have been empowered by God with the freedom to choose to do anything we please, we live by a code of self-governed restraint.

As you all know, Goodridge v. the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is a case before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in which 7 same sex couples are demanding marriage licenses. That court's response to this case will either continue to whittle away our freedoms or strengthen them; contribute to our cultural need for a baby sitter or empower us to live within the already sufficient set of boundaries that has defined marriage since the beginning of time. I hope that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will deny these 7 couples marriage licenses thus guarding this state, and quite possibly our entire nation, against frivolous lawsuits, which ultimately restrict our overall freedoms. These couples have every right to be together, but their behavioral, not genetic, choices should not be allowed to infringe on society as a whole.

Today, I exhort you: vote in favor of the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment; reaffirm what every culture in history has held sacred: marriage between one man and one woman. A vote in favor of this amendment is a public declaration in support of the bedrock of this great nation. A vote against this amendment is a bullet fired at the family. Corporately, you have the ability to head off a decision that could forever negatively alter the hallowed and deified uniting of one man and one woman by redefining holy matrimony. I urge you to uphold what is moral, legal and right and what honors those leaders who have gone before you.

Finally, having grown up with a homosexual orientation, having lived as an openly gay man, I once dreamed of living in a monogamous same sex marriage relationship. Today, having experienced sexual reorientation, now living a heterosexual lifestyle for the past 11 years and enjoying the bonds of heterosexual marriage for over 5 years, I can attest firsthand to the fact that same-sex marriage is not needed. I can also attest to the fact that same-sex marriage is not what those seeking it are ultimately after. I implore you all to ask yourselves the question, "What's next?" If marriage is redefined to include homosexuals, then what will the next battle be? I guarantee this is only the beginning of wide sweeping legislation changes that seek to limit the freedoms of many in the name of expanding the freedoms of a few. No other behaviorally defined group in history has sought to redefine our culture like the Gay and Lesbian Elite. Re-affirm today that our current freedoms are sufficient for all, that Gay and Lesbian people already have the God created right to choose for themselves what kind of life they desire to lead, liberties they strive to take and happiness's they yearn to pursue. Re-affirm that more rules are not necessary and that the morality of a few is not enough to redefine morality for us all.

Vote yes to protecting the children of today. Vote yes to protecting children of tomorrow. Vote yes to protecting the family. Vote yes on the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment.

Liberty Counsel Release on Massachussetts Judicial Tyranny Related to Same-Sex Marriage

Massachusetts Court Says Legislature May Not Adopt Civil Unions As A Substitute For Same-Sex Marriage – The Majority of States Are Rejecting The Liberal Court Ruling

Orlando, FL – Today, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a 4-3 opinion stating that a proposed Senate bill creating civil unions for same-sex couples does not comply with its decision last year in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, which ruled that withholding civil marriage from same-sex couples violates the Massachusetts Constitution. Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, an international religious freedom education and litigation organization, stated that the Massachusetts legislature may now have the ammunition amend its constitutional to preserve marriage between one man and one woman.

On November 18, 2003, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a 4-3 decison stating that forbidding same-sex marriage violates the Massachusetts Constitution. The court gave the legislature 180 days to respond to the decision. Following the Goodridge ruling, the Massachusetts Senate on December 11, 2003, to the state Supreme Court Justices posing the question whether Senate No. 2175, entitled “An Act Relative To Civil Unions”, would be a permissible substitute for same-sex marriage:

"Does the Senate, No. 2175, which prohibits same-sex couples from entering into marriage but allows them to form civil unions with all ‘benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities’ of marriage, complied with the equal protection and due process requirements of the Constitution of the Commonwealth in articles 1,6,7,10,12 and 16 of the Declaration of Rights?"

Today four Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court wrote that civil unions for same-sex couples still violates the state constitution. Three same three Justices who dissented in Goodridge again argued that the matter of same-sex marriage should be left to the legislature.

Staver noted, “Today’s decision requires the state legislature and the citizens of Massachusetts to confront same-sex marriage head-on. Civil unions are a compromise. Now that the Massachusetts Court ruled it will not accept anything less than same-sex marriage, the line has been drawn in the sand. The vast majority of Americans continue to believe that marriage between one man and one woman is an institution that must be preserved. The Massachusetts decision spawned a huge backlash throughout the country. At least 14 states (GA, IL, KS, KY, MD, MA, MI, MS, MO, NM, OK, UT, and WI) have filed legislation to ban same-sex marriage through a state constitutional amendment. Three other states are soon to follow (FL, MN and TX). Ohio will now become the 38th state to expressly ban same-sex marriage. Only 38 states are necessary to amend the U.S. Constitution, an effort that gained momentum since the Goodridge decision. Liberty Counsel supports such an amendment (see our statement on the Federal Marriage Amendment at www.lc.org). As I predicted last year, the sleeping giant of the majority of Americans who believe in traditional family is awakening, and the Massachusetts decision has served only to energize this pro-family movement.”

SIGN THE PETITION FOR A FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

Mathew D. Staver, Esq.
Liberty Counsel
PO Box 540774
Orlando, FL 32854
800-671-1776
www.lc.org

Letter to The Boston Globe

Dear Ms. Chinlund (Ombusdman for The Boston Globe):

My name is Alan Chambers and I used to be gay. It is because of my great interest in the education of young people on the subject of healthy sexuality that I am writing you today regarding the article 'HOPE FOR THE FUTURE' WITH THE RIGHT TO MARRY IN THE BALANCE, GAY TEENS DREAM OF A WEDDING DAY. Within the article there were many factual discrepensies that I would like for you and the Globe to address.

First of all, I find it incredible that the Boston Globe is promoting teenage marriage. A 16 year old boy is barely able to committ to Friday night plans let alone a life partner. I highly doubt that this subject would have been broached if Patrick was interested in marrying a 16 year old girl. No one in their right mind would encourage high school students to marry at such a young, emotional and underdeveloped age. However, there is a double standard when it comes to the relentless promotion of all things homosexual. Because Patrick wants to marry another boy marriage is all of a sudden okay for those underage. How can the Globe logically argue in favor of high school students getting married? Why not encourage post high-school education, continued physical and emotional maturation, settling into a career and other life skills that will encourage healthy personal and societal growth? Don’t you know that those who marry in high school are less likely to finish their education, almost guaranteed not to go to college and more apt to ask society to foot their bill via welfare programs? Don’t you know that those who marry very young are at greater risk for divorce because they were too young to make an informed decision?

As for the fact that this was a pro-homosexual marriage piece, I found the article devoid of responsibility and wise counsel for young people in need of life-giving advice and direction. The statistics are alarming: the number one killer of gay men is still AIDS related illness. One of the highest rates of HIV infection is in gay young men between the ages of 16 – 25. With monogamous gay relationships lasting, on average, 2 months you have just encouraged two minors to marry one another when they will likely be divorced within a year only to repeat the viscious and emotionally destructive cycle again.

The Boston Globe has a responsibility to print the facts and this article was seriously lacking where facts are concerned. How about reporting that no study has ever been successful in linking homosexuality to genetic or biological factors. How about quoting Dr. Dean Hamer, a gay researcher, who conducted the infamous study on chromosomes and later stated that it was his finding that female homoxexuality was 100% developmental and that it was his belief that this would be proven to be the case with male homosexuality, as well. How about promoting more study, research and open dialogue concerning the emotional, medical and psychological facts concerning homosexuality. How about presenting the truth that tens of thousands of men and women have successfully changed their sexual orientation and that teaching any thing less than further education and sexual maturity among teenagers is wreckless and life threatening.

Don’t make furthering a politcal agenda more important than the lives of young people.

Sincerely,

Alan Chambers

One of the Reasons I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

I remember being a lonely 18 year old searching for Mr. Right. I remember the ache to have a man hold me, protect me, love me and devote his life to me. I remember thinking that I would do anything to fill that insatiable need. I did everything short of praying for my knight in shining armor to show up on my doorstep. I was certain that the missing piece of my life’s puzzle was going to be found in the man of my dreams.

Nearly 14 years later I am happy, content and satisfied emotionally, physically, spiritually, sexually and relationally. Indeed, my needs were met by a man who has filled my life with the greatest security, intimacy and love imaginable. The man I met, however, was Jesus Christ. Because of Christ my needs were met, my life was changed and this month I celebrated my 6th wedding anniversary with my wife, Leslie.

Had same-sex marriage been legal in 1990 I am certain that I would have tested that option. I met men whom I wanted to “marry”. Yet, as I look back as a mature adult, I realize that I wasn’t searching for a man as much as I was searching for an answer, a drug if you will, to numb the pain and make me feel better about who I was. The law kept me from making one, if not many, huge mistakes. And while honoring and preserving the sanctity of heterosexual marriage is the bedrock of my opposition to redefining marriage to suit a few, I believe a positive bi-product of keeping same-sex marriage illegal is that it will save tens of thousands of hurting young people like me from the biggest mistakes of their lives: looking to man to meet a need that only God can meet.

I encourage you to take a stand for today’s gay youth by opposing same-sex marriage; they may not thank you today, but protecting them now provides them with a better chance of being around to thank you later.