Mass. Supreme Court Runs Amok: When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gave Homosexual Couples Equal Legal Standing with Traditional Marriage, It Crossed the Line from Judging Law to Making Law

By Eddlem, Thomas R. | The New American, December 15, 2003 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Mass. Supreme Court Runs Amok: When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gave Homosexual Couples Equal Legal Standing with Traditional Marriage, It Crossed the Line from Judging Law to Making Law


Eddlem, Thomas R., The New American


Every elementary school student is--or used to be--taught that the legislative branch of government makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch judges whether the laws of the legislature have been broken or if statutes themselves are unconstitutional. That's called "separation of powers." But Massachusetts' highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), brazenly obliterated that basic distinction between the legislative and judicial branches of government in the November 18 Goodridge v. Department of Public Health decision.

The 4-3 SJC decision openly admitted that laws passed by the legislature indicated that marriage consists of a man and a woman. "The only reasonable explanation is that the legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry," Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall conceded in the court opinion. "We have recognized the longstanding statutory understanding, derived from the common law, that 'marriage' means the lawful union of a man and a woman."

The court also admitted, citing as example the 1810 case of Hanlon v. Rollins, that past Massachusetts courts have ruled that marriage "is an engagement, by which a single man and a single woman, of sufficient discretion, take each other for husband and wife." Marshall's opinion conceded the obvious: "Certainly our decision today marks a significant change in the definition of marriage as it has been inherited from the common law, and understood by many societies for centuries."

So if the court admitted the statutes have always held that marriage is limited to a man and a woman, and if past court decisions and common law tradition confirm this, then how can it rule that the law says same-sex couples have a right to manage? "The larger question is whether," Marshall wrote, "government action that bars same sex couples from civil marriage constitutes a legitimate exercise of the state's authority to regulate conduct, or whether, as the plaintiffs claim, this categorical marriage exclusion violates the Massachusetts Constitution." Say again'? Isn't this the same 1780 Constitution written by puritan John Adams?

Indeed it is. But the SJC majority didn't imply that John Adams favored treating homosexual couples on a par with traditional marriage. They concluded instead that "the marriage ban does not meet the rational basis test for either clue process or equal protection.... In this case, we are confronted with an entire, sizeable class of parents raising children who have absolutely no access to civil marriage and its protections because they are forbidden from procuring a marriage license."

In his dissent, Justice Francis X. Spina exploded this straw argument:

   What is at stake in this case is not the
   unequal treatment of individuals or
   whether individual rights have been
   impermissibly burdened, but the
   power of the legislature to effectuate
   social change without interference
   from the courts.... The power to
   regulate marriage lies with the
   legislature, not with the judiciary....
   The marriage statutes do
   not disqualify individuals on the
   basis of sexual orientation from
   entering into marriage....
   Whether an individual chooses
   not to marry because of sexual
   orientation or any other reason
   should be of no concern to the
   court.

The Massachusetts Constitution only guarantees a "right" to same-sex marriages if one assumes, as the SJC does, that "civil marriage is an evolving paradigm." Marshall ruled that the appellate court decision granting a "right" to same-sex marriage "refined the common-law meaning of marriage. We concur with this remedy, which is entirely consonant with established principles of jurisprudence empowering a court to refine a common-law principle in light of evolving constitutional standards." Ah, evolving constitutional standards. In the vernacular, that means the Supreme Judicial Court opinion was not a judicial decision; it was a legislative act.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Mass. Supreme Court Runs Amok: When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gave Homosexual Couples Equal Legal Standing with Traditional Marriage, It Crossed the Line from Judging Law to Making Law
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?