|
Okay, reading the case now. Let me give you the legal skinny. Deep breath.
_______________________
PART ONE: Equal Protection
2 Tests: One regular ("rational basis") one and a heightened scrutiny ("strict scrutiny") one where a fundamental right or suspect classification is involved.
Why?
Althought Article 1 of Mass. Const. specifically prohibits sex-based discrimnation, the court did not have to decide whether sexual orientation fit this category (and therefore would be a suspect class). The court instead used the lower scrutiny test, and found that even under the lowest standard the law did not pass muster.
"Rational Basis" Test = Can an impartial lawmaker logically believe the classification would serve a legitimate public service that transcends the harm to the members of the disadvantaged class?"
____________________
PART TWO: Due Process
"Rational Basis" Test = Does the statute bear a real and substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or some other phase of general welfare?"
_________________________________
Under both tests, the court held that prohibiting gay marriage could not answer "YES" to these tests, and struck it down. It addressed several arguments asserted by the state ("A" below) and others who filed amicus curiae briefs.
A: Provide a favorable setting for procreation
Nope. The laws do not privilege precreative heterosexual couples more than others. It is the exclusive commitment between partners, not ensuing children, that forms the sine qua non of marriage. Further, the State wants to facilities child-rearing by any parrent, single, married, hetero, or homo. In fact, the court said this argument singles out a difference between the two and transforms it into an essence of marriage. It impermissibly identifies persons by a single trait and then denies protection across the board. It is the state affirming a destructive stereotype of inferiority.
A: Opposite-sex couples ensure that children are raised in an "optimal" setting.
Wrong again. Restricting marriage does not further the welfare of children. Demographic changes in the past century make it such we can hardly define the "typical" family. In keeping with the notion that the children are paramount, in our era logic and compassion have continually moved to unburden children from the stigma that previously applied to illegitimacy. The State offered no evidence to support this argument, and even admitted homosexuals can make good parents. In fact, the court had in front of it some of the plaintiffs who were raising children perfectly well. There was no rational basis supporting the notion. Moreover, legal limits on the sexuality of marriage made it actually harder for those people to raise children. The court railed on this topic at length.
A: Limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the legislature's interest in conserving scarce state resources.
This argument was based on the assumption that same-sex couples are more financially independent. The court basically said the statutory ban on same-sex marriage bears no rational relation to the economy. This was basically a pffffft.
A: Including same-sex couples will trivialize marriage as it has historically been fashioned.
The decision marks a change in marriage. But it does not disturb thefundamental value of marriage. The plaintiffs only want to be married, they do not want to abolish marriage. They do not attack the binary nature of marriage, the consanguinity (incest) limits, or the gate-keeping aspects of the law. It does not diminish the dignity or validity of opposite-sex marriage any more than letting blacks and whites marry diministhed the dignity of marriage.
A: It is for the legislature and not the courts to decide.
Wrong. The Mass. Constitution requires that legislation meet certain critera. Labelling the court's role as usurping the legislatrue is misunderstanding the very nature of judicial review. The court owes deference, but decides constitutional issues. The history of constitutional law is "the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded." (Citing US v. VA, which prohibited excluding women from the military.)
A: It will cause interstate conflict of law.
The court cannot predict how another state will respond, but the court can't decide thing under its constitution based on comity.
3 judges dissented in a separate lengthy opinion I haven't yet read.
[ 11-18-2003, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]
__________________
 
|