Massachusetts Court Decision to Legalize Same Sex Marriage
Signals the Start of an Epic Struggle
Dear Reader,
As expected, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on November 18th ruled by a 4 to 3 vote in the case of Goodridge v
Department of Health that the commonwealth's law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violated the state constitution.
The court stayed its decision for 180 days to give the legislature time to comply with its decision, though the decision makes
clear that authorizing "same sex unions," as Vermont did in response to a similar verdict several years ago, will not satisfy
the ruling. It is unclear what the legislature can do to comply except legalize same sex marriage, an action that
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romeny has vowed to veto.
The only other alternative available to avoid legalizing same sex marriage is to amend the state constitution to clearly limit
marriage to the union of a man and a woman. The provisions for doing that in the commonwealth, however, require that such an
amendment be considered by two successive legislatures before being put to a vote. As a result, even starting an amendment
process now would mean no vote before 2006.
Although the ruling was expected, the justifications the majority offered to support it are both noteworthy and a cause for
real concern. While the decision nominally construes the state constitution, the overwhelming majority of the authority cited
consists of U.S. Supreme Court cases construing the federal constitution. In particular, the state court relied heavily on the
reasoning of the majority in the recent Lawrence case overturning Texas' anti-sodomy law. The majority on the state court
also cited recent Canadian court decisions legalizing same sex marriage in two provinces in that country.
We will be posting a more detailed analysis of the Massachusetts decision on the Web site shortly, but what the court
essentially found was that "the everyday meaning of marriage" is "arbitrary and capricious." In lay terms, the court
found that this "everyday meaning of marriage" was essentially irrational. This is an astounding finding, one that has
implications for any law on the books. It is the most recent and one of the most outrageous examples of "activist judges"
legislating from the bench. There is nothing in the state or federal constitutions that could even remotely justify such a
conclusion and finding.
In addition to the profound legal implications of this ruling, the court's action underscores once again the growing problem of
determining who in this country should make these kinds of decisions. In our democratic system, it must be the people, acting
through their elected representatives, and not unelected judges. Increasingly, it is judges who are imposing their personal
views and policy goals by fiat.
The more immediate problem, however, is what will be the impact of this decision on traditional marriage and the family in the
United States. Justice Scalia warned in his dissent in Lawrence, that the court's ruling in that case left "on pretty
shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples." He was right--and the Massachusetts decision was a
veritable earthquake. Traditional marriage in this country is under the most serious attack ever. I have no doubt that,
unless something is done, the courts will impose same sex marriage on us in the not too distant future.
The only certain way to prevent that--to "do something"--is by amending the United States Constitution to clearly define
marriage in this country as the union of a man and a woman. That will not be an easy task. But it is one that we must
accomplish quickly if we are to defend these critical institutions of marriage and the natural family. This will be an epic
struggle, as significant as any social policy struggle in our nation's history.
One thing each of us can do to help in this fight is to sign the National Petition to Defend Marriage that Defend Marriage is
launching today. Our petition states simply:
Whereas, strong families have been the foundation of all successful societies throughout history; and
Whereas, marriage between a man and a woman has always been essential to protect and promote strong families; and
Whereas, expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex partners would inevitably undermine the institution of
marriage and thereby weaken the family;
Now, therefore, as a citizen of the United States of America, I urge Congress to defend marriage by passing a constitutional
amendment to limit marriage to the union of a man and a woman.
You can simply go to our Web site, www.defendmarriage.org, and sign the petition
electronically. We will present this petition to Congress as part of our broader efforts to get a constitutional amendment
passed. The more people who sign the petition, of course, the more seriously Congress will take the need to defend marriage
by passing an amendment.
You can help even more in this effort by spreading the word to others and encouraging them to sign our petition as well. An
easy way to do this would be to forward this newsletter on to others you think might sign. The Web site also provides an easy
way to send an e-mail to others just by entering their addresses.
This is a struggle that we must win. With your help, we will!
Thanks for whatever you can do!
Richard G. Wilkins
Chairman
|
