MARRIAGE IS APPARENTLY NOT FOR THE FAINT-HEARTED

COMMENTARY

NOTES ON THE RECENT NEW YORK AND WASHINGTON STATE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DECISIONS

FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!

UPDATED: NOVEMBER 24, 2006

As noted in the commentary below the thrust of the fight on the issue of same-sex marriage has returned to the states with a vengeance. Since the original blog the midterm 2006 elections have produces seven more states that have passed resolutions or state constitutional amendments defining marriage in the old fashion way-one man, one woman. Arizona is the only state that bucked the trend. Also since the summer the New Jersey Supreme Court has held that same-sex marriage does not violate the state constitution. However, unlike Massachusetts the justices left it up to the state legislative to run with the issue. The struggle continues but remember- Government out of the bedrooms!

Originally posted: August 2006

Earlier this year, when the United States Senate was discussing and voting on a proposal to make the prohibition against same-sex marriage a constitutional amendment this writer pointed out that with the defeat of that measure in the United States Senate the battle ground would again shift to the states and particularly to the judiciary. (see blog, dated June 7, 2006). The states have been the battleground for quite some time. Numerous states have overwhelmingly approved various state constitutional amendments, statutes, etc. banning same-sex marriage. This summer the highest courts of New York and Washington states have rendered decisions along that same line. What is striking is the legal reasoning used to justify the majority decisions in these cases. One would think these cases were about prohibitions against indentured servitude rather than marriage. Here’s why.

One would have thought that in this day in age the act of marriage, at its core, represents nothing more than the act of registering the fact two people decided to legally fortify their relationship. Apparently this writer is way off base in that assumption. According to the legal reasoning put forward by the majorities in the aforementioned states procreation is a fundamental state interest. Fair enough. However, to those majorities the point of marriage, the fundamental point, is to ensure that procreation is protected within that act. Odd, odd indeed. While it would be easy to punch a hole (or rather about 10,000 holes) in that reasoning I will let it go. Let me say this- by the courts’ reasoning whole categories, way beyond the targeted same-sex couples, would be affected if their reasoning is followed through to the end. A rule of thumb in judicial- decision making is to tailor the decision as narrowly as possible while addressing the facts of the case. It takes an active act of judicial malice to take a swipe at most of society in order to get to your sacrificial lambs. Nice going Washington and New York Supremes.



THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!