The pro-same-sex marriage crowd is like the pro-abortion crowd in its ability to re-define reality. Take for example, this op-ed in yesterday’s Boston Globe, which tried to make a connection between laws that used to ban interracial marriage with attempts to protect the definition of marriage.
That’s a red herring. Marriage is a union of man and woman and it is clear that laws than banned marriage based on race are not the same as saying that two men or two women can’t marry. The argument against same-sex marriage says that it is an attempt to create something that doesn’t exist. Laws against interracial marriage take what is obviously marriage by the real definition and make it illegal based solely on race, which is obviously wrong.
That said, here is the challenge to reality contained in the column: “In 2004, when Massachusetts faced a legal challenge of whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, we got it right. Marriage equality is written into our Constitution where it belongs and should remain.” Exactly when was same-sex marriage written into the Constitution? Did someone pass a constitutional amendment when I wasn’t looking? No. This is the typical liberal viewpoint. They imbue in a judicial decision the ability to change the meaning of the Constitution. Just because a panel of judges rule a particular way, they believe the Constitution is changed. What happens if a future bench of the Supreme Judicial Court reverses this decision. Is the Constitution changed again?
Technorati Tags:amendments, constitution, Massachusetts, same-sex marriage