A "Shameful Reversal of Rights"?

Today's Boston Globe carries as its lead editorial a commentary on the Massachusett's legislature's permitting the continuation of the legal process to define constitutionally marriage as the union of one man and one woman. HERE The title of this editorial is: "A Shameful Reversal of Rights." But, is the action a true reversal of any "right"; moreover, is the action of the legislature "shameful"? The answer to each of these questions is no.

The reason why the answer is no relies on a proper understanding of the meaning of equality. While MOJ is not the appropriate forum to develop an in-depth investigation of the concept of equality, which is at the heart of the marriage debate, I hope to develop this inquiry over the coming months. But in the meantime, an initial response to the Globe editorial is in order because of the influence that publication has on the law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and elsewhere.

The proposed amendment to the state Constitution that is at the nucleus of this controversy defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, a definition that long existed but was altered by the Supreme Judicial Court's decision in the Goodrich case handed down a few years ago. If the proposed Constitutional amendment is a ban on gay "marriage" as the Globe asserts, it is also a ban on polygamous "marriage" and any other relationship or association that someone erroneously believes to be a "marriage."

The Globe editorial is also highly critical of the use of the procedural mechanism being used to present the amendment and indicates that one of the "key" arguments (namely, a large number of certified signatures on a citizens' petition) is "spurious." I often wonder what the Globe's characterization of this mechanism would be if it were used by advocates for same-sex "marriage" had the Goodrich case been decided differently. In the context of the current use of the legal mechanism to define marriage, the Globe further asserts that "There is no such right" in the Constitution; however, the recent criticism levied by the Supreme Judicial Court against legislative efforts to thwart the process to amend the Constitution would indicate that the Globe's assertion is unfounded.

In presenting the rationale to support this editorial, the Globe appears to rely, in part, on a recent statement by Governor-elect Deval Patrick that yesterday's vote by the state legislature enabling the amendment to proceed is "irresponsible and wrong." Once again, the Supreme Judicial Court has suggested otherwise. However, this does not eliminate the possibility that someone else-- perhaps the Globe or the Governor-elect-- is wrong.

I would like to end this posting with a recollection from my experience as an elementary school student who attended a public school in Massachusetts during the 1950s. Several times during the course of the academic year at either school assemblies or during the broadcasted morning annoucements, Governors' proclamations-- often dealing with some civic-minded subject-- were read to the students. The public readings of these proclamations always ended with the supplication: "God Save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts!" In light of the fact that MOJ is a web log dedicated to Catholic legal theory, I shall conclude this post by saying that I shall continue to pray to the Almighty that He may indeed save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and that I plan to begin my investigation of equality soon. A blessed New Year to members and readers of MOJ. RJA sj