The logical extension

The logical extension

Jeff Jacoby, token conservative columnist at the Boston Globe, writes about what we can expect in the future considering recent court decisions designed to provide new rights to homosexuals.

He says that in light of the US Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas and the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court’s Goodrigde v. Department of Public Health, just about anything you can imagine is up for grabs. In Utah, polygamy is explicitly forbidden by the state constitution. But Jacoby says that the twin court decisions, taken as written, would make that constitutional provision moot.

Last June, in Lawrence v. Texas, the US Supreme Court overturned a Texas antisodomy law on the grounds that the Constitution protects “an autonomy of self that includes freedom of . . . certain intimate conduct.” Five months later, guided in part by Lawrence, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that the age-old ban on same-sex marriage was “incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy.” The essence of civil marriage, said the SJC in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, is simply “the exclusive and permanent commitment of the married partners to one another.”

Or to put it more simply: “...the only people entitled to decide whether an intimate relationship is meaningful enugh to deserve legal protection are the parties to that relationship themselves.” So someone who wants more than one spouse—if all the parties are amenable—should be allowed to, under the legal precedents. Same for someone who wants to marry his sibling or parent. Or his dog, for that matter.

Of course, what we’ve learned in recent years is that the law and precedents is whatever the courts say they are. There is no obligation to internal or external consistency. The courts would be quite willing to create the legal obligation to allow gay marriage and then forbid those rights, under the same conditions, to other politically incorrect groups.

What should be happening is that legislators should be fulfilling their constitutional duty as a check and balance against the power of the courts. Instead, they have punted. By their spineless refusals to assert the authority, they have allowed the courts to rule by fiat. They are quite comfortable allowing the courts to make the hard decisions, then they can just claim to be only able to follow those dictates. We’ll see it with a civil unions bill in Massachusetts (which is the least we can expect to happen) and we saw it with campaign finance reform. In the latter, the Republican Party was opposed in principle to the law as written, but congressional leaders and W decided to allow it through, expecting the Supreme Court to do their job and overturn it. Oops! Where did our free speech go? I expect that very soon we’ll be saying that same thing in a different vein: Oops, where did the family go?

  • Fifty percent is a reach. Most studies show that 70-80 percent of people at least want to be able to vote on it themselves, not have it imposed by judicial fiat or legislative numbness.

    “Who else should judge?”

    That is the fundamental question of society. Every law is a judgment on the choices of certain people. Some things society decides are allowable because they are good for society, others are not.

    Once again, Craig doesn’t bother to read the linked article but bloviates by reflex. There already is a lawsuit in Utah in which a threesome wants polygamy and is using Goodridge and Lawrence as precedents. To use his own statement—“You have no right to impose your views on my lifestyle.”—then that law should be overturned, right?


    Craig’s argument is oft-quoted and completely anecdotal, never supported with facts or logical reasoning. Like most stuff from the homosexual activist crowd.

  • Craig “You have no right to impose your views on my lifestyle.  The people best suited to judge a relationship is those people themselves” and not only can we say that from this side of the issue but we have morale teachings behind us and it is the natural thing that humans are created for, even the lowest life form reproduces and that is what we are all created for.

  • Just so you all know, I deleted Craig’s second post here. I had previously banned Craig from posting because of certain uncharitable and slanderous remarks made against me as well as abusive emails he sent me privately. However, certain changes in the software running this site had accidentally lifted that ban. It is now fixed.

    By the way, I only let Craig’s first post remain because by the time I saw it Sock had already replied and I found the original comment and interesting example of the twisted thinking on this issue by those who want gay marriage.