HEY, MY REGISTER COLUMN ON THE MASSACHUSETTS SSM DECISION IS ONLINE! I didn’t know that. (I note they declined to use my draft headline, “From the State That Brought You Harvard.”)
It’s not every day a court gets to stand against all of recorded history.
That’s what the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did Nov. 18 when, in Goodridge v. Department of Health, it ruled that marriage in Massachusetts is no longer the union of a man and a woman but the union of “two persons.” The court argued that forbidding a man to marry another man constituted unlawful and irrational sex discrimination.
…The Massachusetts court is saying to citizens, “You all go ahead and vote for the laws. Then we’ll tell you what you really voted for. Don’t expect it to look much like what you thought you agreed to.” The rule of law requires that laws be predictable and stable–that laws not be yanked out from under citizens like a carpet in a Tom and Jerry cartoon. The Massachusetts court (like the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade) has ignored this principle.
The funny thing is, this bait-and-switch approach to judging may be turned against the Goodridge decision itself in the future.
…Marriage–civil marriage, not just sacramental marriage–is essentially a procreative union in two ways.