The USA's judicially-forced march towards full gay marriage continues. The new decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court says it all.
"The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples." (Goodridge, at p. 3).
No, the real problem is that the SJC has no constitutioanlly adequate reason for giving civil marriage to same-sex couples. None. There is no discrimination argument to be made. EVERYONE has the right to marry, provided that your spouse is of the opposite gender. This is because the concept of marriage, as it has been practiced since, well... the beginning of the human race, has been based on complementarity of the sexes. (In other words, Tab A goes into Slot B, and in 293 days, barring any problems, you get Bundle of Joy C.) This action is so fundamental that every civilization in the history of the planet (yes, even the Greeks!) built civilizations and moral codes around the idea of marriage between one man and one woman. But ohhhh no... those codes are "outdated" and "exclusionary." Thus, in our feel-good, instant gratification society, they have to get torn down. But at least the court told the legislature this nicely...I think...
"In their complaint the plaintiffs request only a declaration that their exclusion and the exclusion of other qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage violates Massachusetts law. We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion." (Goodridge, at p. 36)
In other words, they just gave the Massachusetts legislature a Hobson's Choice. You can pass a new law about marriage, as long as it expressly allows gay marriage. Otherwise it's unconsitutional. It's a "choice" in name only.
Let me predict the next steps in the process. 1. Same-sex marriage becomes law in Massachusetts at the business end of a gavel. 2. Two gay non-residents get married in MA, return to their home state, and then sue their home state to require recognition of their marriage under the "full faith and credit clause." Home state balks, invoking the Defense of Marriage Act. 3. Gay couple goes to federal court seeking a) to have DOMA declared unconsitutional under "full faith and credit clause," or b) to have bans on gay marriage thrown out under the Equal Protection clause (citing Lawrence v. Texas with great ebullience). In both cases, the district and/or circuit courts, being courts, say OK (I can't imagine this not happening.) 4. Supreme Court a) strikes down DOMA and allows-gay marriage to happen state-by-state, or b) declared bans on gay-marriage unconstitutional on an equal protection basis. Not a single legislative act, executive order, or popular vote required. Isn't judicial activism fun? (And isn't this why a federal marriage amendment is sounding more and more like a good idea every day? )
One more thing: I'm agnostic on the subject of gay marriage. I think it may work out wonderfully and restrain the tendencies of gays and lesbians to make lewd, debaucherous sex their sole raison d'etre and turn them into average Joes and Janes who happen to be gay, or it may backfire horribly and send us on the slippery slope to polygamy and group marriage, consequences for children be damned. Either one can happen. I'm not thrilled with the idea of gay marriage, but I'm not totally opposed to the idea either. What pisses me off is the fact that a bunch of unelected judges are single-handedly forcing gay marriage down America's throat. Yes, it may win a battle for "gay rights," but if the gay rights movement continues to rely on judicial force rather than legislative consent to further its agenda, it is going to turn a good portion of this nation into sworn enemies, and if that happens, it will ultimately lose its war. And I, for one, won't shed a single tear over it.
Remember Charles Issawi's Rule on the Pace of Progress: Society is a mule, not a car... If pressed too hard, it will kick and throw off its rider."
Posted by Thief at November 18, 2003 04:58 PM