Gay Marriage...
by Anonymous at 2/09/2004 10:35:00 AM
Justice Greaney concurred "with the result reached by the court, the remedy ordered, and much of the reasoning in the court's opinion," but expressed the view that "the case is more directly resolved using traditional equal protection analysis." He stated that to withhold "relief from the plaintiffs, who wish to marry, and are otherwise eligible to marry, on the ground that the couples are of the same gender, constitutes a categorical restriction of a fundamental right." Moreover, Justice Greaney concluded that such a restriction is impermissible under art. 1 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. In so doing, Justice Greaney did not rely on art. 1, as amended in 1976, because the voters' intent in passing the amendment was clearly not to approve gay marriage, but he relied on well-established principles of equal protection that antedated the amendment.
http://www.barrister2.blogspot.com/2003_11_16_barrister2_archive.html
Basically there is an attempt to claim the "right" to marriage under the Massachusetts Constitution (originally written by John Adams BTW) even though the amendment cited was only approved by the electorate under the proviso that it would not be used to enact gay marriage. This judge is basically willfully ignoring the stated will of the legislature and the will of the electorate and reinterpreting the article to satisfy his social values, in effect circumventing the process and balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary.
Regardless on one's values on this matter, one should be very worried about this abuse of power by the judiciary (and this is not an isolated case) in reinterpreting laws where it is obvious what the stated intent of those laws are.
I personally am for a reform in the way we think of marriage, but trying to ram this down the throat of the electorate is certain to result in backlash and disapproval and in fact heighten the conflict in a way that will serve no ones interests. And because of the way this was legislated from the bench, it now opens the door to legal challenges for those who want to marry sheep, their daughters or multiple individuals. You might claim they will be in the minority, but if Sweden's Gay Marriage rates are any indication, they is reason to suspect that the actual number of gay couples getting married will be quite low (of course Marriage in Sweden isn't terribly popular in general, so that may caused depressed rates of it amongst homosexuals as well)
Marriage is privilege (not a right in most places) that is granted by society to provide a stable cohesive unit for raising children. It is traditionally a contract not just between a man and a woman, but also with society at large. Hence, it does become other peoples business what goes on in the bedroom of a married couple. Before Modern Feminism (1970 or so) Marriage laws were meant to make divorce difficult and to protect the spouse who might be forgoing a career to take care the children. The current system of divorce laws encourages daycare and other arrangements which have been shown to, on average, be worse situations for children as judged by their ability to grow into properly functioning adults.
Traditionally, a married couple would be having sex, with the more often than not consequence of children. Modern and reliable birth control, as well as easy access to abortion have changed that. Marriage no longer equals children. Since the institution was founded from a societal point of view as a protection for children, we probably need to add a new stage to our process. Civil Unions for everybody, heterosexual or homosexual, and then an automatic upgrade to marriage upon the birth or adoption of a child. This would also enable us to keep the "no fault divorce laws" so loved by feminists and Playboy Magazine for dissolving childless marriages, and also allow us to enact the stricter, more difficult divorce laws for those with children.
I have looked and I can't find any reliable studies on the effects of homosexual parenting on kids. I would however suspect that it isn't any worse than being raised by a single parent, which is something that is now accepted if not condoned, by our laws.
However, if we are to codify homosexual parenting in our laws via a grant of marriage, it should be done with the agreement of the rest of society ( the 3rd part in a Marriage contract) and not forced upon society by lone social reformists. The legislature can do this in such a way that only Homosexuals will be admitted to the contract and still allow the exclusion of other family types (a Man and his goldfish). The welfare of children is greatly affected by the environment in which they are raised, and the admission of new societally condoned environments should be undertaken with extreme care.
http://www.barrister2.blogspot.com/2003_11_16_barrister2_archive.html
Basically there is an attempt to claim the "right" to marriage under the Massachusetts Constitution (originally written by John Adams BTW) even though the amendment cited was only approved by the electorate under the proviso that it would not be used to enact gay marriage. This judge is basically willfully ignoring the stated will of the legislature and the will of the electorate and reinterpreting the article to satisfy his social values, in effect circumventing the process and balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary.
Regardless on one's values on this matter, one should be very worried about this abuse of power by the judiciary (and this is not an isolated case) in reinterpreting laws where it is obvious what the stated intent of those laws are.
I personally am for a reform in the way we think of marriage, but trying to ram this down the throat of the electorate is certain to result in backlash and disapproval and in fact heighten the conflict in a way that will serve no ones interests. And because of the way this was legislated from the bench, it now opens the door to legal challenges for those who want to marry sheep, their daughters or multiple individuals. You might claim they will be in the minority, but if Sweden's Gay Marriage rates are any indication, they is reason to suspect that the actual number of gay couples getting married will be quite low (of course Marriage in Sweden isn't terribly popular in general, so that may caused depressed rates of it amongst homosexuals as well)
Marriage is privilege (not a right in most places) that is granted by society to provide a stable cohesive unit for raising children. It is traditionally a contract not just between a man and a woman, but also with society at large. Hence, it does become other peoples business what goes on in the bedroom of a married couple. Before Modern Feminism (1970 or so) Marriage laws were meant to make divorce difficult and to protect the spouse who might be forgoing a career to take care the children. The current system of divorce laws encourages daycare and other arrangements which have been shown to, on average, be worse situations for children as judged by their ability to grow into properly functioning adults.
Traditionally, a married couple would be having sex, with the more often than not consequence of children. Modern and reliable birth control, as well as easy access to abortion have changed that. Marriage no longer equals children. Since the institution was founded from a societal point of view as a protection for children, we probably need to add a new stage to our process. Civil Unions for everybody, heterosexual or homosexual, and then an automatic upgrade to marriage upon the birth or adoption of a child. This would also enable us to keep the "no fault divorce laws" so loved by feminists and Playboy Magazine for dissolving childless marriages, and also allow us to enact the stricter, more difficult divorce laws for those with children.
I have looked and I can't find any reliable studies on the effects of homosexual parenting on kids. I would however suspect that it isn't any worse than being raised by a single parent, which is something that is now accepted if not condoned, by our laws.
However, if we are to codify homosexual parenting in our laws via a grant of marriage, it should be done with the agreement of the rest of society ( the 3rd part in a Marriage contract) and not forced upon society by lone social reformists. The legislature can do this in such a way that only Homosexuals will be admitted to the contract and still allow the exclusion of other family types (a Man and his goldfish). The welfare of children is greatly affected by the environment in which they are raised, and the admission of new societally condoned environments should be undertaken with extreme care.
