Posted on 12/03/2003 6:52:34 PM PST by nickcarraway
It's not every day a court gets to stand against all of recorded history.
That's what the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did Nov. 18 when, in Goodridge v. Department of Health, it ruled that marriage in Massachusetts is no longer the union of a man and a woman but the union of "two persons." The court argued that forbidding a man to marry another man constituted unlawful and irrational sex discrimination.
The Bait-and-Switch
The court drew on several laws and state constitutional provisions in making its case, including anti-discrimination laws, hate-crimes laws and a constitutional provision modeled on the failed Equal Rights Amendment forbidding discrimination on the basis of sex.
There's just one problem: When Massachusetts legislators voted for these laws, they were assured again and again that same-sex marriage would not be the result. There is virtually no chance that these laws would have passed if voters and legislators had believed they would lead to the radical redefinition of marriage.
The Massachusetts court is saying to citizens, "You all go ahead and vote for the laws. Then we'll tell you what you really voted for. Don't expect it to look much like what you thought you agreed to." The rule of law requires that laws be predictable and stable - that laws not be yanked out from under citizens like a carpet in a Tom and Jerry cartoon. The Massachusetts court (like the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade) has ignored this principle.
The funny thing is, this bait-and-switch approach to judging may be turned against the Goodridge decision itself in the future. As UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh (who supports same-sex marriage) has pointed out, the language the majority used in its decision gives no good reason to bar polygamy or adult incestuous marriages. If marriage is simply about commitment, well, obviously we can make commitments to more than one person. And we can make commitments to people who are already members of our families - for example, siblings. Why should these commitments not be recognized in law as marriages?
Although the Goodridge decision insists that the plaintiffs, and therefore its decision, do not "attack the binary nature of marriage [i.e. you can't marry more than one person], the consanguinity provisions [anti-incest provisions] or any of the other gate-keeping provisions of the marriage licensing law," why should the court expect its wishes to have any more force than the wishes of the voters and legislators the court has already ignored? If the court is willing to proceed from what it deems as the internal logic of various pieces of legislation, rather than either the plain text or the legislators' common understanding of what they were doing, why should later courts not apply the same test to Goodridge?
Procreation
The majority in Goodridge rejected the argument that marriage is an essentially procreative union, pointing out that couples who cannot have children are still permitted to marry. But this objection misses the point.
Marriage - civil marriage, not just sacramental marriage - is essentially a procreative union in two ways. First, marriage only exists because of procreation. Marriage developed as a universal human institution because when a man and a woman have sex, very often a baby is conceived. We've tried to convince ourselves that we have gotten around this "problem." But no matter how many hormones a woman pumps into her body, no matter how much latex we swathe ourselves in, intercourse still makes babies. If nothing else, the existence of almost 4,000 crisis-pregnancy centers in this country should prove that. Marriage developed because the children conceived by men and women need to be protected, and, especially, need strong legal ties to their fathers, whom biology allows to walk away far more easily than mothers.
And marriage developed because sexual risk is asymmetrical: Men and women face different risks when they sleep together. Men risk committing resources to care for children that may not be their own. Women risk being abandoned and left to care for a fatherless child. Marriage developed to minimize these risks. That's why no society - even among those that did have a social role for some expressions of male homosexuality - has instituted same-sex marriage until the past decade.
Second, marriage is procreative because marriage is society's way of ensuring that as many children as possible have mothers and fathers. A couple who cannot conceive children on their own can adopt, thus providing children with a mother and a father. Two men, however, can't replace a mother, nor can two women replace a father.
We see this most obviously in the inner cities, where many families consist of a grandmother, a mother and a child. Here, two women struggle to raise a child without a father. And the children say, again and again, that they need daddies. The sons say they had no one to teach them how to be men. The daughters say they had no one to teach them what to look for in a man, what role a man should play in the family.
Same-sex marriage says that men - fathers - are unnecessary in forming a family. This is one of the most detrimental messages a society can send.
What Now?
At first glance, the Massachusetts court seemed to have left a loophole for the Legislature: The court's ruling would not take effect for 180 days. In that time, court-watchers initially speculated, the legislature could seek to amend the Massachusetts Constitution, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Such an amendment would override the court's decision.
But the Massachusetts constitution is difficult to amend, and it is impossible to amend in 180 days. So that route is out.
The Goodridge decision makes the question of the Federal Marriage Amendment all the more pressing. This amendment would prevent both courts and legislatures from enacting same-sex marriage. The most basic version of this amendment would read, "Marriage in America is and shall be exclusively the union of one woman and one man."
Amending the Constitution of the United States is a major project and not a step to be taken lightly. But if we do not take this step, we may lose the fundamental building block of society.
Eve Tushnet writes from Washington, D.C.
The pedophile sites I listed justify their actions by believing adult/child love is not detrimental to the child. The APA has also made a similar statement. Is this something you agree with?
You have done nothing but attack. This tells me you are unable to verify your comment with facts. This is typical of propagandists. Attack when asked even simple questions.
I leave you to your followers.
Again, your question had a typo and didn't read too clearly so I asked you for clarification. It would be really easy for you just to retype the question and that's for what I'm asking... clarification.
You have done nothing but attack. This tells me you are unable to verify your comment with facts.
Oh boy. Please show me where I attacked you. And I'd be more than happy to verify my comment if I could just get some clarification from you. The ball is in your court. Please just clarify and/or retype your question and add anything else you think will help.
Again you didn't answer my question. Do you agree that adult/child sexual love is not detrimental to the child? A simple answer is all I'm asking for. How about: "Absolutely not" for an answer?
I believe you are responding to a paper presented my 1 pysch and disavowed by the organization.With your latest reference to the APA I take it the organization is the APA. I wasn't sure if you were referring to Paidika or the APA.
I wasn't responding to a paper. If you read what I wrote in that specific post you'd see I was trying to recall something from memory. And earlier in the thread I was referring to a paper/article from family.org, but not from the APA.
Your statement "my 1 pysch" must have at least one typo as it makes no sense to me, especially with what I wrote above.
So, please clarify so I don't waste any more of my time.
I believe you are responding to a paper presented by 1 pysch and disavowed by the [APA].The paper is what? I take it psych is a person? Who?
Read the post I first replied to. Read my question. If you don't understand it now, then I am unable to teach down to your level.
This is far less of a problem than you are making it out to be. So modify the law of partnership to allow for social relations (which would not be limited to men and women whose sexual urges tend toward the perverse) as social partnerships subject to explicit agreements and equitable splits of property.
But let the law be clear: this is NOT marriage.
In truth, proponents of gay marriage are looking for a way to hijack the coercive power to government to force everyone to acknowledge their perverse relationships as co-equal with traditional marriage. That is also what fuels their drive to enact hate crime legislation.
My two neighbors, the women who got married by their minister, don't want the government to force you to acknowledge their marriage. They just want you to shut up and leave them alone. They want the benefits of a legal marriage and are not asking you to believe anything.
You see this as a power struggle. They see it as two people wanting what many others want and wondering why you want to stop them.
You never answered my question about adult/child sex.
And now a personal insult? Thank you!
Will Pedophilia Be Next In Massachusetts Schools?
You are correct, I have not answered your question. When I get a straight answer from you, I might consider answering your question if I'm bored and have nothing better to do with on a slow day.
Which benefits are they denied?
Does the law prohibit them from being with the "one they love"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.