From Squaring the Boston Globe:
The Globe today has a big story about the low quality of Big Dig construction and how this issue had been documented internally for years. Funny, for years the politician and media blovations about the Big Dig have focused almost completely on its ever-expanding cost, not its quality. Now when the walls spring leaks, the same folks suddenly have gotten religion about construction quality. How like a child, this behavior.
The most interesting story in today Globe is one about gay marriage (which I personally don’t care much to talk about). It’s a pretty long story without any occasion mentioned for it except that today is (apparently) 1 year after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay marriage is a right implicit in the Massachusetts constitution.
Mary Bonauto, the civil rights director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (aka GLAD…how about that; not 1 but 2 ampersands in the title!) is quoted as saying that despite going 0-11 in state ballot measures in the November election “the worst thing to do right now is to stop the public conversation.”
In order to keep the conversation going:
“In August, GLAD filed another lawsuit, on behalf of seven gay and lesbian couples seeking the right to marry in Connecticut.For Mary and her like-minds apparently, a “public conversation” is conducted through litigation.Other activists are also arguing the issue in the courts. Cases seeking marriage rights for gays and lesbians are still pending in New Jersey and California courts. In several states, advocates plan challenges to bans on same-sex marriage approved by voters on Election Day, though activists remain divided about whether those efforts might backfire, speeding passage of a Federal Marriage Amendment.”
Article comments
1 - Mac Diva
He said:
For Mary and her like-minds (sic) apparently, a 'public conversation' is conducted through litigation.
As was every other civil rights issue in the U.S. It will take time, but the courts may have to be the branch of government that recognizes the equality of homosexual Americans.
Someone wise said:
"Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."
-- Martin Luther King Jr.
2 - RJ
Great post, Harry! :)
3 - Big Time Patriot
That's funny, when more people voted against Bush in his first election instead of voting for him... yet Bush chose not to listen to the "public conversation" and take a moderate course...
More to the point, I believe discrimination is wrong, no number of initiatives will convince me otherwise. If the ending of Jim Crow laws in the South had been up to a vote, perhaps they would still be in existence. Should the black people have just "shut up and been quiet"? I don't think so...
If people passed a law preventing Christians from marrying, do you think they should just accept it? Nah...
It's a tough subject but it boils down to the fact, are you afraid of homosexuals, do you think they are contagious, do you OPPOSE marriage? When these laws are passed, a certain number of marriages are prevented from happening, hence, these are ANTI-Marriage laws. People claim to be pro-life if their beliefs will result in more births regardless of the resulting quality of life of the children and the unwilling parents. So the quality of the marriages prevented is not an issue, just the number of marriages. If all these initiatives had been correctly labeled as "Anti-Marriage" initiatives, do you think they would have passed?
4 - andy marsh
considering that christians are the majority in this country, I doubt that a law like that would ever be passed. Understand, I have no problem with civil unions. I've stated this in the past. The people of this country apparently want mariage to be between one man and one woman. I seriously doubt that any amount of bitching or litigiation will change that opinion. It will only make it worse.
5 - boomcrashbaby
today is (apparently) 1 year after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay marriage is a right implicit in the Massachusetts constitution.
Your inflammatory misinformation about the ruling does a disservice to your credibility. The Mass. Supreme Court ruled that anything less than marriage [would deny to same-sex "spouses" only a status that is specially recognized in society and has significant social and other advantages. The Massachusetts Constitution, as was explained in the Goodridge opinion, does not permit such invidious discrimination, no matter how well intentioned."]
The ruling was on societal discrimination.
[Goodridge v. Mass. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 NE2d 941 (2003). Massachusetts' "gay marriage" decision. "Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law."]
The court did not say everybody has a right to be married. The court said everybody has a right to be free from [the effect of maintaining and fostering a stigma of exclusion that the Constitution prohibits.]
Should anybody be interested in the presiding judge's opening statement upon the ruling:
Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. 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.
We are mindful that our decision marks a change in the history of our marriage law. Many people hold deep-seated religious, moral, and ethical convictions that marriage should be limited to the union of one man and one woman, and that homosexual conduct is immoral. Many hold equally strong religious, moral, and ethical convictions that same-sex couples are entitled to be married, and that homosexual persons should be treated no differently than their heterosexual neighbors. Neither view answers the question before us. Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.
--
That last line there would get one qualified as an 'activist judge' in this day and age.
and finally, you said in your post that you don't care much to talk about gay marriage:
For Mary and her like-minds apparently, a "public conversation" is conducted through litigation.
but it got you talkin about it.
6 - Harry Forbes
Thanks to all for your thoughtful comments.
The reason I do not like to discuss this issue is that while I would prefer to be libertarian about it, I can’t seem to get comfortable with that position.
To explain my queasiness, let me address the comment by boomcrashbaby. Thanks for adding the text from the ruling. The judge’s opening statement says:
“The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society….The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.”
My question is this: Where does the judge's limitation to “two” people originate in law that makes “two” a legally valid form of discrimination for recognizing these relationships, as opposed to the genders of the people involved which is ruled an invalid form of discrimination?
7 - boomcrashbaby
I'm not sure I understand your question, and I'm not a lawyer, but the number of people in a marriage wasn't being challenged. To put one of the lines of text here and highlighting different parts of it this time:
The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.
If three people sued to get married that would have posed a different question to them, but the number wasn't being challenged so no ruling was made on the number. The assumption that a marriage only applies to two was left standing.
If I understand the question you posed correctly, I think that would answer it. No ruling was made on the constitutionality of the number of individuals.
There is one sentence I wish I had highlighted part of, before:
"But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples."
Although the ruling acknowledges the societal discrimination that takes place by exclusion (and that is important info for us to remember in future cases), the ruling only rules on the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred in a marriage, not on the overall societal discrimination which it acknowledges exists.
Removing the biblical aspect out of marriage, which should be the case since marriage has been around before Christianity anyway, many people want hetero marriage only because of a desire to create a 'higher, proper pedestal' to reach for, in the creation of a family and for the future of the species. They believe that marriage (the ultimate definition of family) is the best way to raise children. That has NOT been changed. In Mass. the optimal pinnacle in society of bestowing benefits, privileges and such upon the hetero family unit remains. Nothing has been 'lessened', or 'watered down', all arguments to the contrary have not stood up.
8 - Harry Forbes
Thanks. Let me re-phrase the question and improve on what I asked last time.
I would argue that the writers of the Commonwealth’s constitution and laws have historically defined marriage to be a contract between one man and one woman. Yet the Supreme Judicial court has ruled that such a definition is too narrow and is unconstitutional; that the gender of the contractors cannot be used as a legal means of discrimination with respect to their rights to enter into this contract. The court claimed that the state "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples." If there is not a “constitutionally adequate reason” for defining the genders of marriage contractors, what is possibly a “constitutionally adequate reason” that limits the number of contractors to two? Occurrence of plural marriages is far prevalent historically and cross-culturally than is same-sex marriage. In fact it is part of the early Judaic tradition and still practiced today in parts of Islam.
What “constitutionally adequate reason” permits this limtiation to stand?
9 - boomcrashbaby
What “constitutionally adequate reason” permits this limtiation to stand?
Perhaps none. That was not addressed in the question before the court so that remains unanswered.
If the question before the court was 'can marriage be limited to a man and a woman', then the ruling of yes or no would have applied to ALL other forms of family, although I suspect the case would have been thrown out for being too broad and would have to be reworded. The question was 'can marriage be denied to two same-sex individuals'. The answer to that is no, and does not address the number of individuals, because that question remains to be asked.
One thing to consider is that ANY contract, including the marriage contract, be between consenting adults 'of sound mind'. This would exclude bestiality as it could never be proven that an animal would consent to the responsibilities and obligations of a contract. As for polygamy, it has been outlawed because historically, it has been proven to be harmful to the women in the relationship. So polygamists will have a burden of proof upon them that gay couples do not have. Within a court of law, one clearly does NOT open the door for the other, and any individuals who go around with the chicken little rhetoric of "The sky is falling the sky is falling, I may be straight but I can't think straight, next thing you know people will be marrying appliances" shows us that people who have no understanding of the concept of law, want to replace judges with those who see things their way. That should scare all of us in regards to ANY legal matter.
A good example of the question you are talking about is the marriages that took place in S.F.
The court ruled that the mayor violated the law by performing the marriages. As to whether the law is constitutional or not, remains to be addressed. That case is before the court and a ruling is expected within 6 months probably, that will rule the law is NOT constitutional and gay marriage will be allowed in California. So while the ruling will stand that the mayor violated the law, ultimately (and closer to election time) he will be vindicated societally, if not judicially.
A court needs a specifically narrow question posed to it, and the court will only answer THAT question. Any other issues that arise, like the number of individuals, need to have their own question posed before the court.