|
Supreme Court
Planning New Type of ‘Relationship’ to Replace
‘Failed’ Institution of Marriage
|
|
|
The battle to change
marriage is led by Margaret Marshall (front
row) and John Greaney (seated at far right).
Other Justices are Francis X. Spina (seated
at left), Roderick L. Ireland (seated second
from left), Judith A. Cowin (standing left),
Robert J. Cordy (center) and Martha B. Sosman
(standing right).
|
Sidebars:
By MassNews
Staff
April
2003 Print Edition
The Supreme Judicial
Court is planning a new type of relationship to replace
our present form of "marriage" and "families."
The plan would happen within the next few months in
response to the gay marriage lawsuit.
Instead of mothers and fathers, the Court will introduce
us to "partners," where children will be
ancillary to the desire for everyone to have a "partner"
or "partners" because "marriage,"
the judges say, is a failed institution.
Their plan becomes quickly apparent as one analyzes
a transcript of what took place at the oral argument
on Monday, March 3, in the case of Goodridge v.
Dept. of Health, wherein seven gay couples are
seeking to get married.
The historic announcement from the Court will come
in the next few months unless something causes them
to change this plan.
Some believe the judges will change if they sense
that it could be a disaster for them personally or
for the Court.
The Chief Justice, Margaret
Marshall, is the unapologetic leader in changing the
definition of marriage. She constantly harassed the
lawyer, Asst. Attorney General Judith Yogman, who
was arguing against the homosexual plaintiffs.
Marshall first began interrupting Yogman after she
had been talking for only 8 seconds in the 15-minute
period that she was apparently assigned to present
her case. Justice Marshall consumed 56% of Yogman's
time, not allowing the attorney to present her argument
or other Justices to ask questions. At the end, when
Yogman requested an additional 30-seconds so she could
finish a portion of what she had tried to say, Marshall
snapped, "I'm afraid your time is up." Yogman
politely responded, "Thank you." The Court
Officer commanded, "All rise" and the Justices
left the courtroom.
Marshall had just finished telling Yogman she could
have "a few minutes" to sum-up, but then
she closed down the charade after the attorney had
spoken for 28 seconds.
Justice John Greaney joined Marshall as the most vocal
supporter of this revolutionary change in the society
of our state and the entire country.
The case is before the Court because the gays are
appealing a ruling of Superior Court Judge Thomas
E. Connolly who dismissed their lawsuit on May 2,
2002, saying it is the Legislature which should resolve
this question. The trial judge ended his 17-page opinion
with this sentence: "While this Court understands
the plaintiffs' efforts to be married, they should
pursue their quest on Beacon Hill." Instead,
the plaintiffs appealed his decision, as expected,
to the Supreme Judicial Court, where they have many
friends.
Marshall's intent became
clear when she questioned Atty. Yogman about why marriage
was established in the first place. Marshall denied
that marriage was established to protect children.
She believes that marriage is about "property."
"Let's go back to the original marriage acts
where I think it would be a stretch to say it was
for procreation," Marshall intoned at Yogman,
who continued to remain civil. "One way to look
at it is that marriage is always a property relationship
and if there were offspring, certain properties follow
as a consequence, certain rights, certain obligations
towards the offspring. If, in fact, there were offspring
outside marriage, outside marriage, they were dealt
differently. What the Commonwealth seems to be saying,
and it's not unreasonable, is that you have cut off
the first piece of the history and picked up just
at the procreation point."
But Atty. Yogman could not let that pass and retorted:
"No, Your Honor. Although the concept of marriage
has changed, it hasn't changed to be purely an economic
partnership. It's still based fundamentally . . ."
At which the Chief Justice interrupted: "No,
no. I'm not suggesting it's only an economic partnership,
but one of the original bases was to recognize that
two people in a certain kind of union brought with
them certain economic benefits to that, and if there
were offspring as a consequence of that union, that
the benefits flowed in a particular way."
But Yogman could not agree to that. "I beg to
differ. I think it was the other way around, that
the reason that economic benefits are conferred on
married couples is to encourage this setting for procreation
and childrearing. It's not the other way around."
To which Marshall responded, "It's part and parcel
of the same thing, correct?"
The Asst. Attorney General attempted to conciliate
with this powerful figure, while keeping her strong
position. "Well, the benefits that flow from
marriage, that the state has attached to marriage
are because the state wants to encourage this model
of marriage where there are one parent of each sex
and the legislature might conceivably believe still
today that that is an optimal setting for procreation
and childrearing."
Justice Greaney joined
Marshall by asking Yogman to "reconcile"
the "paradox" that the SJC has created.
"The state acknowledges," said Greaney,
"that same sex couples with children, who are
permitted, obviously, to adopt children under the
Tammy decision constitute a family, but they
don't constitute a family for purposes of being married?
Are those ideas somewhat at odds?" (The Tammy
decision came from the SJC in 1993.)
Atty. Yogman replied: "Not at all, Your Honor.
The idea that same-sex couples can adopt on a case-by-case
basis is not at all inconsistent with the idea for
the legislature or the Court to say that they're required
to permit marriage. Adoption is one thing, marriage
has many other responsibilities and benefits associated
with it other than child rearing."
But Greaney warmed to his attack on marriage. "You
would agree with me, however, that there is no firm
definition of family. There is the idea of family,
according to our decisions and other thinking that's
gone far beyond the notion of two heterosexual people
married, having children?"
Yogman valiantly fought these people who are supposed
to be entitled to respect. "That's correct, Your
Honor, but there's never been a suggestion that there
was a constitutional right to that. To the contrary,
the Court said that while foster parents share a lot
of the attributes of a family, there is no fundamental
right of foster parents to adopt. They have said that
while some of the interests associated . . . "
At that point, Margaret Marshall was unable to contain
herself. "That's an interesting distinction because
we haven't said that everybody has a right to adopt."
When the Assistant Attorney General quickly agreed,
Marshall continued: "But we have said that a
group of people that hithertofore were not permitted
to adopt are permitted to adopt."
Yogman countered that that did not involve the Constitution.
"But that was by interpreting a statute. The
Court didn't suggest that that was constitutionally
required and other Courts that have considered it
have said . . ."
But the Chief Justice interrupted again. "No,
and it is a position that was interpreted by this
Court and has not been changed in any respect by the
Legislature."
The Assistant Attorney General stood her ground. "That's
correct. But adoption, again, is something very different
than marriage. There is nothing - and, in fact, the
plaintiffs in this case have all the benefits associated
with childrearing. They all are the adoptive or natural
parents of their children and so the issue of the
right to control the upbringing of the children is
not an issue in this case because they have all the
rights of parents and the children have all the rights
of children."
At this point, an
unidentified male Justice took the attack. "What
would you identify as the top - the most important
reasons for the state justification for excluding
these kinds of marriages?"
To which Yogman responded. "The most important
justification is that limiting marriage to opposite-sex
couples furthers this state's interest in fostering
the link between marriage and procreation."
A male voice then asked: "How - let me interrupt
you for just one moment. How would prohibiting same-sex
couples from getting married further that link between
marriage and procreation?"
The answer came back: "Marriage, procreation
and childrearing. They are all related and same -
the idea of the Legislature could conceivably believe
- this is what I believe is the strongest argument.
The Legislature could conceivably believe that encouraging
same-sex couples to marry would not be a beneficial
thing in terms of childrearing."
But the unidentified male responded with a ridiculous
nonsequitor: "Because they would not be available
to marry people of the opposite sex?"
Attorney Yogman hastened to straighten out this confused
Justice. "No. No, not at all. No. Because the
Legislature could conceivably believe that an optimal
setting for childrearing and procreation is a family
where there are one parent of each sex because mothers
and fathers, the Legislature could believe, and there
is literature to support it, that mothers and fathers
each make unique contributions to the upbringing of
a child. Just as this court said in Blixt,
there is a possibility that children would benefit
from having a parent of each sex. It's possible that
many children do very well with a parent of one sex,
but nevertheless the court said . . ."
But Yogman was interrupted by Margaret Marshall yet
again. "Ms. Yogman, I well understand the argument.
When you link marriage, procreation and childrearing
and say that the legislature could well believe that
optimal setting is with heterosexual two parents -
to what extent does recognizing that single-sex couples,
as in Tammy [the 1993 SJC case], which the
Legislature has not sought to amend in any way, is
not a powerful recognition that childrearing in fact
with single-sex couples is optimal for certain children?"
The attorney repeated Marshall's words back to her.
"'For certain children.' That's the difference,
Your Honor. Adoption is on a case-by-case basis. Every
family . . ."
But Marshall was not going to allow Yogman to talk.
The lawyer was too good and was making serious inroads
into Marshall's arguments. "I understand, but
if you make the link between marriage, procreation
and childrearing, what you are saying is when you
go backwards you make the case for childrearing, procreation,
but not for marriage."
Yogman attempted to explain. "I'm saying across-the-board
and that's the difference between marriage and adoption.
Marriage, if it's permitted, would be for any same-sex
couple and then . . ."
But she was interrupted again by Marshall. "The
State is free to say, for example, after a heterosexual
couple has been married for ten years and has produced
no children, unless there is evidence that both parents
are infertile that they should be divorced so that
the other parent - so the parents can be free to marry
to try and procreate with another couple?
The attorney responded, "No, Your Honor. First
of all, for the state to draw the line that way would
be an impermissible intrusion into the private lives
of the people involved."
The name of the case is: Goodridge v. Dept. of
Public Health, No. 08860.
Sidebar:
Only Two People Allowed
to Address Judges about Gay Marriage; Total Time of
37 Minutes and 11 Seconds Allotted; Further Discussion
and Voting Will Be in Secret
The seven lawyer/judges
have allowed only two people, both lawyers, to address
them for a total of 37 minutes and 11 seconds in this
lawsuit about gay marriage. (That is not an exaggeration.
When one asked for 30 additional seconds, Margaret
Marshall stopped her immediately.)
Unlike Congress and Beacon Hill where weeks, months
or years of testimony is heard from dozens or hundreds
of witnesses, many of whom are just plain people,
such as professors, economists, psychologists, medical
doctors, mothers, school teachers, rabbis, farmers,
fathers, priests, sociologists, lawyers (who are not
judges), executives, ministers, whites, blacks, Hispanics,
Asians, etc., etc., before a court decides a complex
issue like this. That is because courts are not designed
to be a legislature and have never tried to take that
role until recent years.
Unlike Congress and Beacon Hill, everything other
than those 37-plus minutes will be debated and decided
totally in secret. Unlike the "open-meeting"
laws which the judges apply to our cities and towns
with great determination, they believe there is no
need for us to know anything about their discussions
behind closed doors.
They permit some people to submit a "Friend of
the Court" brief, also known as an "amicus
brief," but no one ever knows if the lawyer/judges
read them. In order to file such a brief you cannot
be poor, because you must hire a lawyer to understand
the intricacies of what color the cover of the brief
must be, etc., etc.
If the citizens of Massachusetts wish to make this
historic change, they should do so. But it should
be their choice, and everyone will then accept it.
It should not be accomplished in secret by seven lawyers
because that will surely rent this state apart.
Sidebar:
Margaret Marshall Lectures
Australia's Courts; They Must Tolerate More Criticism
of Themselves
Margaret
Marshall told the Australian courts last August that
they must tolerate more criticism of themselves. Speaking
at the University of Sydney as part of the Vice-Chancellor's
Sesquicentenary Distinguished Lecture Series, she
admonished their courts, saying that American courts
do not just tolerate public and media scrutiny, they
invite it.
"The American public's trust," she said,
"is the product of our citizens' nearly unbounded
right to peer into every nook and cranny of the administration
of justice, and to voice their opinions, in any timbre,
about what they find."
Turning to the Australian courts, Justice Marshall
said that they "can, and should, tolerate a great
deal more criticism of judges and of the judiciary."
Marshall's husband, Anthony Lewis, told an audience
that in less than a year since September 11, world
opinion had swung from overwhelming sympathy with
the U.S. to doubting its wisdom in pursuing "pre-emptive
strikes" against Iraq. "In terms of political
craft, it's quite an achievement to have taken a moment
when we were the object of sympathy, and in a period
of six or eight months to have converted that to hostility
by just about everyone," he said. Although Lewis
resigned under apparent pressure from the New York
Times a few years ago, he was still credited by the
press in that country as a "New York Times columnist."
This led many to wonder how Marshall will react to
the three ethics violations filed against her last
month by Sarah McVay Pawlick.
They will also wonder when told that Anthony Louis
was one of the first two non-lawyers to receive the
prestigious "Henry Friendly Medal" from
the American Law Institute in Philadelphia last October
since the inception of the award in 1987. Guess who
is a member of the Institute's governing council?
None other than Margaret Marshall.
Sidebar:
This Editorial,
Which Appeared in MassNews in Dec. 2000,
Predicted What Margaret Marshall Was Trying to Accomplish
When Will Professional
Feminists Join 'Rest of the World'?
Chief
Justice Margaret Marshall: Another Liberal In Trouble
The Chief
Justice of our Supreme Judicial Court, Margaret Marshall,
is a professional feminist who is a disaster to professional
women.
For the second month in a row, we report about the
partisan speeches she has made across the state. Her
courts are in serious disarray, but she is out there
seeking to divide the citizens.
When will she join the rest of the world instead of
attempting to divide us?
She's important as the first woman to lead the courts
of Massachusetts, which is now a female dominated
court system. Many will judge other women by what
she accomplishes. Yet, we are seeing courts that are
failing. This is not good news for the many capable
women who are being judged by her failures.
We've reported many times, for example, about how
her courts are illegally tearing children from their
fathers in custody battles and tearing them from both
mother and father in unlawful attacks by the DSS.
None of these would stand scrutiny under the Constitution
if anyone had the money to challenge it. Our lead
story in this issue is about the unlawful cronyism
that exists in one of her courts, which is led by
a woman.
Yet Ms. Marshall is not worrying about the fact that
she is polarizing our state.
She went to Worcester last month to tell some fellow
feminists that they must elect more "women"
and "those who are interested in the interests
of women." She seems unable to grasp the idea
that her role is to represent all the people of Massachusetts,
not just one group. Marshall also doesn't appear to
understand that a judge must be impartial and not
enter into politics, because she also does that with
the examples we have reported of her open support
of the Democratic party during the last two months.
She believes that all women support her extremist
views on abortion. She'd be happy to give a plastic
card with the telephone number of Planned Parenthood
to every teenager in the entire state. There will
be no dissent. After all, she was an important leader
in Planned Parenthood before joining the bench.
She's married to the powerful and liberal NYTimes/Boston
Globe/Worcester Telegram complex which employs her
husband, Anthony Lewis, as its leading columnist and
which is just as didactic. We were not informed of
the Globe's conflict-of-interest when they were lobbying
heavily for her appointment.
She spreads division by telling the women of Massachusetts
that "the gender revolution" will continue
only so long as you women "exercise your right
to vote at every opportunity that you have."
She doesn't want to admit that the women of America
have always been treated as equals. The tremendous
changes we have seen in the lives of women (and men)
are only because of the revolution in technology that
has occurred in the last century. This fight is really
between the feminists and the other women who don't
share their socialist goals. She doesn't know that
Betty Friedan wrote in The Feminine Mystique. "The
suburban housewife [in the 1950s] - was the dream
image of the young American women and the envy, it
was said, of women all over the world....[T]he chains
that bind her in her trap are chains to her own mind
and spirit."
'Fundamental
Assault on Marriage'
Many of the women in our state don't realize that
the ultrafeminists really meant it when they said
in the 1970s that women will not be "free"
as long as we have marriage. One leader of NOW expressed
it this way, "Any real change in the status of
women would be a fundamental assault on marriage and
the family. People would be tied together by love,
not legal contraptions. Children would be raised communally."
Betty Friedan was diplomatic but others in NOW were
more blunt saying that the typical mother and housewife
is the "ultimate, useless parasite."
So it will not be a surprise that Marshall is not
unhappy to see the breakdown in families that her
courts are causing. She and the other ultrafeminists
wish to see the Swedish model of socialism where everyone
goes to work, including the mothers, and the children
are raised by the state.
With the advent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we've
seen businesses coerced to hire the same number of
women employees (including those in high levels) as
they do men. This is now required by the 1964 law
even though the vast majority of women who apply for
those positions are not the typical woman, because
80% of them are telling pollsters they would rather
be home with their children than in the work force.
Marshall understands this is a problem for her agenda.
She must obfuscate in some way and blame the problem
on someone else. So she tells her female audience
that the great unfinished business of the women's
movement is the harm "we are doing to our children,
what it has meant to have women with no alternative
but to work full time..." But she won't say that
it is her movement which is requiring every woman
to work. She doesn't tell them that it's her dogma
which has brought these unfortunate changes.
She doesn't tell them that back in the 1950s, the
total taxes for an average family were about 4%-5%
of their entire income; now it's around 40%. This
means that the woman in an average family today is
working solely to pay the taxes that the family owes.
This is what happens in the socialist society that
Marshall is pushing.
Extremists like Marshall will claim that the "patriarchy"
was never fair to women. But consider the custody
of children as just one example. In the early 1800s,
our "patriarchal" society agreed that the
custody of children should no longer go to men in
the event of a divorce. It was not fair. So, in the
1830s almost every state passed a law that custody
thereafter would go to the best parent. But the courts
didn't enjoy listening to those cases even back then.
So the judges made a presumption that the mother was
always the "best" parent for young children.
Therefore, we went from automatically giving the children
to the father to automatically giving them to the
mother. And we still have that system with a vengeance
in Marshall's courts.
Sidebar:
Colloquy between MassNews and Plaintiffs
After the
hearing in front of the SJC, MassNews asked Julie
Goodridge about her daughter, Annie.
"Is she adopted?"
"No, I gave birth to her."
"Do you ever worry that she will grow up thinking
that men are a bad thing, or at the very least, that
men are unnecessary?"
"No," said Goodridge, "it doesn't worry
me."
At this point, Hillary walked over. "MassNews,"
Julie whispered to her.
"We have lots of men in our lives and family
members who are men," said Julie. "If you
met Annie, you would see that she is a perfectly loving,
intelligent child."
Hillary and Julie had been a couple for some time
when they decided to have a child. They took the name
"Goodridge" because it was Hillary's godmother's
maiden name. They are Unitarians.
Heidi Norton and Gina Smith have two sons, neither
of whom is adopted. The boys have the surname Nortonsmith.
MassNews asked Norton and Smith if they make an effort
to expose the boys to positive male role models.
"We do consider positive male role models,"
said Norton. "Also positive African-American
role models, positive disabled role models - the whole
diversity of the human species! We surround them with
loving, uplifting people - grandparents, aunts, uncles.
We have a loving, supportive extended family."
Norton and Smith met in law school. They are both
Quakers.
Sidebar:
GLAD Lawyers Have Plenty
of Money
The brief from GLAD was
113 pages long. It cited over 150 cases. The Rules
of Appellate Procedure say that special permission
must be given for any lawyer to file a brief over
50 pages, so we must assume that GLAD was granted
permission twice in order to go over 100 pages.
This Boston homosexual law firm has five fulltime
lawyers, plus ten others for a staff of 15 people
working only on homosexual issues in the New England
region, mostly Massachusetts. There are no fulltime
lawyers at all, anywhere, on the opposing side.
It is estimated that this firms budget is over $1
million a year.
Sidebar:
Atty. Bonauto Changed Her Story During First Few Minutes
In the first few minutes,
Mary Bonauto said that gays desire "marriage"
because the system of "civil unions," as
in Vermont, "simply perpetuates the stigma"
that homosexuals "now face" and would be
"branding" them as second-class citizens
"unworthy" of marriage.
But only a minute before, she had lashed out at her
opponents in Vermont who had. She says, "argued
strenuously" that civil unions were "masquerading
as marriage." But the truth is that the opponents
were right.
Everyone, including Bonauto, understands that "partnerships"
and "unions" are only the first step toward
gay marriage. Therefore, it is a masquerade for marriage.
The plan, according to an Editorial in the New York
Times, has been to get gay partnerships and gay unions,
as in Vermont and then proclaim five- or ten-years
later that this is no different from marriage, so
let's just change the name from "civil unions"
to "marriage."
Bonauto is already putting the spin on Vermont by
saying that everyone is happy there and has accepted
civil unions. "Certainly, at just two years,
the situation there has completely calmed down and
civil unions are not an issue anymore." But we
all know that is not true.
Sidebar:
Are Mass. Citizens Bigots as Our Court Believes?
Mary Bonauto has said many
times that a "civil rights" issue such as
this must be decided by the courts.
This means that the voters of the state are bigots
and no one can trust them.
That's very strong and insulting, but the elite believe
it. They no longer favor a republican form of democracy
as we have always had, which is guaranteed to every
state by the U.S. Constitution as originally written
in 1788. (See Article IV, Section 4.) They truly believe
that they, the elite, should rule.
The referendum procedures were enthusiastically established
in Massachusetts in 1918 by the liberals, progressives
and populists. But, unfortunately, we no longer have
liberals, progressives and populists in Massachusetts.
We have only socialists who want a big, powerful government
with them in charge, not the people. They say they
are "liberals," but they don't know the
meaning of the word.
The truth is that there are good and bad people everywhere
- including in the courts. The founders of our government
realized that and established checks and balances
so that no one, including the courts, would be able
to seize control.
Some of most terrible decisions have been made by
the courts. In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court held that
a black man had no right to sue in our courts. That
was the infamous Dred Scott decision. In 1896, the
Supreme Court held that the state could require separate
railway facilities for blacks. That was Plessy v.
Ferguson. In 1908 it held that a private school could
be told by a state that it must remain segregated.
That was Berea College v. Kentucky.
Someone should tell the Justices that the citizens
are not bigots. The lawyers and judges do not need
to seize control of the state.
Sidebar:
Mary Bonauto Is 'Special' to Justices
When most lawyers address
the Supreme Judicial Court, they are very formal.
This is a serious occasion, but not Mary Bonauto.
Mary opened by saying, "It's Mary Bonauto here…"
whereas Judith Yogman opened in the traditional manner:
"Judith Yogman, Assistant Attorney General …"
It was apparent from the very first word that Mary
was up there with old friends.
We don't know how many of the Justices were among
the 1,600 people who honored Mary at a political dinner
on Oct. 5, 2000 where she was praised and flattered.
We don't know how many Justices joined in the revelry,
but we do know that Margaret Marshall did. The Chief
Justice was an honored guest who was acknowledged
and applauded at least once.
Mary's special treatment at the oral argument on March
3, 2003, didn't end with the opening salutation. Mary
was allowed to speak without interruption and was
treated graciously, but Judith Yogman was not. She
was constantly interrupted and badgered by Marshall
in particular. Greaney also harassed her, along with
other unidentified Justices.
Sidebar:
Why Parents Have Trouble
with Courts
Justice
Greaney wants us to believe that "experience"
and "science" have moved us to a "level
of understanding" so that children no longer
need a mother and a father !?!
Many parents will now be
able to understand why they are having such terrible
times obtaining justice in the courts, whether they
are fathers or mothers with custody fights, or whether
they are battling the DSS.
They will also wonder whether John Greaney has any
children.
Greaney challenged Asst. Atty. General Yogman after
she said: "The legislature could conceivably
believe that an optimal setting for childrearing and
procreation is a family where there are one parent
of each sex … the legislature could believe and there
is literature to support it, that mothers and fathers
each make unique contributions to the upbringing of
a child.
Greaney would have none of that.
"Let's assume," he replied, "that at
some point in time the Legislature had a rational
basis based on the state of the learning and understanding
of relationships - at that time. But let's assume
that experience and science and other things have
moved the level of understanding far beyond that.
And now we're asked to decide whether there's a rational
basis. Do we look back in time to whether there was
a rational basis a hundred years ago?"
After he got a "No" from Atty. Yogman, the
judge moved on. "Or do we look at it today? Whether
there is a rational basis today [for the belief that
children do better with a mother and a father]?"
After Judge Cordy asked a question. Greaney came back:
"Where do we go to find this rational basis?
You said a moment ago that the basis, the key is the
word I wrote down, 'procreation.' A lot of people
would disagree with that. They would say the contemporary
view of marriage is not procreation. That's certainly
an important attribute of that. It's a partnership
from which a lot of benefits flow, including the right
to have, adopt, bear children or not have children.
Economic opportunities, a whole truss, so forth, a
whole bunch of other things. So my question is where
do we go to find this - whatever this key is? This
rational basis?"
Of course the Atty. General couldn't tell him, but
Justice Greaney is looking at his worldview from a
very selfish point-of-view, which is fairly common
today, which is: What is in it for John Greaney? Most
people used to look at life in different terms. They
saw marriage as a way of raising children because
they loved them and because that made a strong society.
Most people still think in those terms, but Greaney
does not understand that. No one would start a new
society today and provide economic benefits to someone
who has a "partner." So what? they would
say. They would give the benefits to anyone, single
or married.
The obvious answer as to why we give them to married
people has been pointed out by many libertarians.
Those benefits are extended only to entice and encourage
parents to raise their own children.
Sidebar:
Mass. Constitution Says that Legislature Is In Charge
of Marriage
Atty. Chester Darling points
out, in an Amicus Brief filed with the SJC, that the
Court does not have jurisdiction in this case because
the state Constitution expressly says that the Legislature
is in charge of everything to do with "marriage."
A person might argue that no one would say that the
Legislature could enact a statute on marriage that
is grossly unconstitutional and that that could not
be overruled. But all the courts - up until now -
have taken the mandate from the Constitution very
seriously.
Atty. Darling says the plaintiffs are not without
a remedy. 1) They could bring their case before the
proper tribunal under the Constitution, which is:
The Governor and the Governor's Council. 2) They could
seek a constitutional amendment, either through the
Legislature or by obtaining signatures from the citizens.
3) They could bring a claim in federal court under
the U.S. Constitution.
He says that: "Plaintiffs should not be allowed,
however, to bring a claim that alleges violations
of the Massachusetts Constitution, while at the same
time asking the Court to violate that same Constitution
by exercising unauthorized jurisdiction over the subject
matter of this case."
Darling pointed out that this rule of law has been
applied since the Colonial times. As late as 1986,
the Court noted that in Colonial times, jurisdiction
was "over all questions of marriage and divorce
in the Governor and council." This has been said
by the SJC over and over in our history. Atty. Darling
has quoted dozens of them if the Court cares.
When the Constitution was rearranged in 1918, there
was talk about changing this, but it was retained
as it has always been.
Sidebar:
It's Religion! Kill Marriage!!!
Justice
Sosman urged Bonauto to argue that traditional marriage
violates the First Amendment because it's essentially
derived from religion and promotes only inter-sex
marriage. That argument is stated by a lot of people.
But, comes the reply, then we will have to stop punishing
murderers. After all, the Ten Commandants also forbids
murder, as do all religions. Does that mean we can
no longer have any punishment for murder?
|
