|
The great obstacle of marriage: one wants to make love to a willing, co-operating approving female body. In fact one is expected to make love to a partner in accountancy, a fellow businessman, a joint consultant in child-rearing, a fellow voter -- and in one many of these capacities, the wife may very strongly disapprove of the husband. Yet she expects adequate love to made nonetheless. Here is the vicious circle of true-companionship marriage: the more husband and wife share all the responsibilities of life, the more they are engaged in disputes over non-sexual matters, the less they are -- what lovers must basically be -- simply cock and cunt. The more “modern” the marriage, the more extensive the sharing, the less likely is sexual union. One is not irresistibly inclined to fuck one’s lawyer, bank manager and friendly neighbourhood philosopher -- especially if in all three of these personae the wife disapproves of one’s activities.
-- The Diaries of Kenneth Tynan
The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion, we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.
We are mindful that our decision marks a change in the history of our marriage law. Many people hold deep-seated religious, moral and ethical convictions that marriage should be limited to the union of one man and one woman and that homosexual conduct is immoral. Many hold equally strong religious, moral and ethical convictions that same-sex couples are entitled to be married and that homosexual persons should be treated no differently than their heterosexual neighbors.
Neither view answers the question before us. Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach. "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." . . .
No one disputes that the plaintiff couples are families, that many are parents and that the children they are raising, like all children, need and should have the fullest opportunity to grow up in a secure, protected family unit. Similarly, no one disputes that, under the rubric of marriage, the state provides a cornucopia of substantial benefits to married parents and their children. The preferential treatment of civil marriage reflects the legislature's conclusion that marriage "is the foremost setting for the education and socialization of children" precisely because it "encourages parents to remain committed to each other and to their children as they grow."
In this case, we are confronted with an entire sizable class of parents raising children who have absolutely no access to civil marriage and its protections because they are forbidden from procuring a marriage license. It cannot be rational under our laws, and indeed it is not permitted, to penalize children by depriving them of state benefits because the state disapproves of their parents' sexual orientation. . .
The plaintiffs seek only to be married, not to undermine the institution of civil marriage. They do not want marriage abolished. They do not attack the binary nature of marriage, the consanguinity provisions or any of the other gate-keeping provisions of the marriage licensing law. Recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage, any more than recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of a different race devalues the marriage of a person who marries someone of her own race.
If anything, extending civil marriage to same-sex couples reinforces the importance of marriage to individuals and communities. That same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage's solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit.
-- excerpts from the majority opinion by Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling, Goodridge & Others v. Department of Public Health and Another
|
