CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINT: Matt Taylor

In his reply to Ben Bateman, Mark Barton writes:

"Making marriage opposite-sex-only is a perfectly straightforward violation of the letter of the law: 'Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.' A man in Massachusetts can't marry a man because of his own sex--he is not equal under the law to a woman in that respect."

I agree with Mark that current Massachusetts law violates the state's constitution, since it offers no legal institution for same-sex couples. The proposed civil union statute, however, should have been recognized as constitutional by the court. Consider this sentence from the same article in the MA Constitution that Mark cited in his post:

"All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."

Use of the term "civil union" rather than "marriage" does not infringe on anyone's pursuit of life, liberty, property, safety or happiness. The SJC, it seems, believes that unenumerated "natural, essential and unalienable rights" require use of their preferred vocabulary. This is the height of political correctness -- treating a good-faith use of certain terminology for one's social group as a terrible injury. I myself am gay, half of a same-sex couple of 9 years, and we couldn't care less whether our relationship is called "marriage," "civil union," or "chopped liver," so long as the substance of marriage is available to us under the law. I understand that many gay and lesbian couples feel passionately about this choice of words, but that feeling is not shared by all, and therefore the question must be resolved democratically.
posted by Eve at 3:56 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home