As you may have heard, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has decided that barring the marriage of same-sex couples is a violation of the state constitution. I would have to have to agree, and here’s why.

It’s a matter of process. The state does not have laws barring the expression of homosexuality. If the 14th amendment does provide equal protection, then it follows that same-sex marriages cannot be unlawful. It’s really that simple. The folks fighting against homosexual marriage need to fight for laws banning homosexual practices.

Now, much has been said about how the children of homosexual parents are not raised “properly” and that this becomes a burden on the state in the end (and there are statistics that support this). But this is a dangerous road to travel if you believe in personal freedoms/limited governments. Statistics also show that children born out of wedlock don’t do very well. And statistics also show that certain family environments will produce healthier, more well-adjusted kids. Following the logic that anti-gay marriage folks use, the government should really be more interested in who is getting married and who is having kids because of the strain that certain situations put on the system. Perhaps the best choice might be to have more stringent licensing system for marriage — you and your partner have to show that you are competent enough to marry and have children. Then anyone could get married, as long as they passed the test.

It is interesting that the dissenting judges in the decision mention this sort of thing (that same-sex partners may be just as good as traditional partners), but they ask that the world of science be given time to prove this is the case. The dissenting opinion is decidely limp — they are trying hard not to claim that they believe that homosexuality (and marriage, by extension) is immoral. Instead, they veil their opinion behind the claim of looking out for the best interests of the state.

Another interesting line from the dissenting opinion:

Today, the court has transformed its role as protector of individual rights into the role of creator of rights, and I respectfully dissent.

The court is protecting individual rights in this decision. There is no law banning homosexuality, and therefore a homosexual should have the same rights as every other person. This case is all about protecting individual rights.

Posted on 19 November 2003