A very interesting read. The “official” decision comes first, and is followed by an individual brief from one of the justices that takes a somewhat opposing view. Both are well thought out and very valid – only a few very, very fine points separate the two opinions.
A very interesting read. In particular is the second to last footnote paragraph; footnote [5] (pertaining to the second brief), paragraph two:
” Rather than imbuing the word “marriage” with constitutional significance, there is much to be said for the argument that the secular legal institution, which has gradually come to mean something very different from its original religious counterpart, be given a name that distinguishes it from the religious sacrament of “marriage.” Different religions now take very differing positions on such elemental matters as who is eligible to be “married” within that faith, or whether (and under what circumstances) the bonds of that “marriage” may be dissolved. The Legislature could, rationally and permissibly, decide that the time has come to jettison the term “marriage” and to use some other term to stand for the secular package of rights, benefits, privileges, and obligations of couples who have entered into that civil, secular compact.”
Another interesting quote:
“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.”
Sometimes, working with lawyers (and thus being exposed to such legal-speak) is very entertaining … and interesting.
-Keithius
What’s your opinion?
I’ve posted my opinions on this matter before, but I’ll reiterate for the sake of clarity:
I think, in general, that homosexual marriage is an OK thing and should be permitted. The legal issues presented here are difficult to sort out – the justice’s dissenting opinion is correct, their job was simply to interpret the matter under Massachusetts law. Yet the other justices were also correct, in that allowing a seperate definition of “marriage” (called a “civil union”) might make those people “second class citizens.” It’s difficult to draw the line firmly as to what is what; i.e. what exactly is discrimination.
I personally believe we aught to get rid of “marriage” from the legal lexicon all together. It is a religious term and has (IMHO) no place in a secular society. Let “marriage” mean the ceremony that your religion performs; it can be just as real to you & your family, but it will have NO legal standing for anything at all. Of course at the same time you do your “marriage” you can file for a “civil union”, thus making your “marriage” legal (although nowhere in the legal language will it be referred to as a marriage, I prefer the term “partnership,” or “life partnership,” or something along those lines). Thus, traditional people can still have their “marriages” in churches and whatnot and be fine, and non-traditional people can just get the “partnership” license (although I tend to think of it as an agreement, but whatever). Thus, at places like Vegas, all those quickie wedding chapels could just hand out the partnership licenses, no problem with your religious denomination or whatever (because it’s not a religious ceremony).
Hell, you can do most of this already – just get a justice of the peace to perform your ceremony in your living room or whatever. Trust me, it can be done.
Still, whatever I think, it’s a big mess for paperwork – although so far, the sky hasn’t fallen, communities aren’t falling apart, and children aren’t being perminantly scarred by the fact that gay marriage is legal now here in MA. In fact, there’s been hardly a peep from the media or the legislature regarding the subject in some time.
I guess they finally learned to just “let it be…”
-Keithius