To the Editor:
Opponents of the recent Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruling on same-sex marriage are quick to say that the SJC is overstepping its bounds by legislating. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
A case was presented to them which concerned a discrepancy between the written law (the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) and the practice of the Department of Public Health. As the SJC determined, there was no law that prevented same-sex marriages in Massachusetts. They did not come close to legislating. They simply restated what the constitutions says - that the only two restrictions on marriage in Massachusetts are that you cannot be related to the person you wish to marry and that you cannot be currently married. I know that it is difficult for people to look at the process if they don't like the result, but the SJC did exactly what they were supposed to do in a case such as this one. They simply affirmed what was always legal in Massachusetts. The fact is that same-sex marriages have been allowed since that constitution was written.
Now, the SJC has competently ruled on the issue of whether the constitution forbids same-sex marriage. It doesn't. Anyone that has read it and can be impartial can see that, but there is something much more important in the decision than a simple restatement of the constitution. Writing for the majority, Marshall points out that "The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens."
That is a big statement. Referencing this part of the constitutions with this case labels homosexuals a group of people with an inherent quality - like Jews or African Americans. It treats people who are gay as gay, and not as people who choose to have relationships with those of the same sex. Marshall goes on to write that excluding homosexuals from same-sex marriage "is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under the law." This might be the most important sentence in the opinion. It clearly states, to me at least, that even a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage would be illegal in Massachusetts. It says that in order to deny marriage rights to homosexuals, you would have to take out all provisions that make African Americans, Hispanics, Jews, Christians, Moslems, women, men and every other person equal under the law.
There are key moments in history and this moment would not be one if the SJC had simply affirmed same-sex marriage. What makes this a key moment in history is that homosexuals are now, in the opinion of the SJC, just that, gay. They are no longer people that choose to have relationships with people of the same sex. They are no longer people who can be denied their rights.- Sean Parick Hogan '07