Yesterday's Boston Globe reported that the SJC was soliciting briefs for an advisory opinion (requested by the legislature) on whether a civil unions bill would comply with its decision in Goodridge. Well, then, here's my brief: the decision said marriage, not civil unions.
The 180 days given to the legislature was not for the purpose of erecting a separate but equal system called civil unions. The decision clearly states that the plaintiffs properly focused on the statute M.G.L. 207 which governs the granting of marriage licenses because that is the gateway to all the rights/privileges etc. that come with marriage (because you can't get married without one). And, the court said, as it is written now, though gender neutral, the statute does really mean "one man and one woman." Therefore, the statute must be rewritten to reflect the court's opinion that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is unconstitutional.
The legislature has to amend the statute to say something like, "two consenting adults whoaren't related and don't have syphilis." Under the current statute, the department of public was accurate in not granting the licenses to the plaintiffs... it was the statute itself that was unconstitutional. And, the legislature would not only have to rewrite that statute, it would have to review all the laws granting rights to married people to make sure that each and every one of those laws was constitutional under the Goodridge decision.
So, to those in the state legislature, stop looking for wiggle room, get to work... the clock is ticking.
No comments:
Post a Comment