Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Decision - Research Paper Example

Task: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003) Introduction The elite of dedication and obligation of marriage is an essential social institution whereby two spouses foster love and joint support. This occurs to the spouses who decide to get married, and for their offspring, marriage issues out profusion of financial, legal and social reimbursement. In return, marriage inflicts weighty financial, legal and social benefits (Foderaro 17). However, the question to be answered is whether coherent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may refute the benefits, protections, and compulsions bestowed by civil marriage to two people of same sex who want to get married. The best answer for this question is found in the Massachusetts Constitution, which states that all people must have equal dignity, and rights, which means that it does not allow development of second-class citizens. However, the Commonwealth and the Department of Public Health denies civil marriage of same-sex couples. Therefore, the ultimate aim of this context is to outline the case that was held at Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts concerning same-sex marriage (Kiritsy 12). The paper also argues and supports the majority opinion, which represents judicial activism. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk, November 18, 2003 On November 18 2003, there was a case filed by same-sex couples who alleged that they were deprived their rights to acquire a marriage license by the department and Commissioner of Public Health. The couple claimed that the department policy and observation refused to give them the marriage license, which was violation of several stipulations of State Constitution. The case was very complicated and to make judgment was a big dilemma (Vermont Public Radio 43). The superior court department had a cross-motion for judgment and eventually Thomas E. Connolly, J., summarized the case for Department but the plaintiffs appealed. The Supreme Court granted the requests of the parties for direct appellate evaluation and the ultimate opinion by Marshall, C.J, was that: The decree of marriage license were not vulnerable of interpretation therefore, same sex couples qualified to obtain marriage license As a matter of initial reaction, snagging of benefits, protections and compulsion of opposite sexes needed rational foundation and infringed state constitutional equal protection rights. The judgment by the Supreme Court was controversial in a way that some prominent people concurred with it while others differed. Greaney, J., was one of the few people who concurred with it while majority differed. For instance, Spina, J. disagreed with the judgment and was joined by Cordy, JJ. Sosman also opposed it and was joined by Cordy and Spina while Cordy disputed against the issue of marriage in the case (Foderaro 161). Therefore, since the people who dissented with the judgment represented the judicial activism, it is clear that the activism were the majority in the case. In other words, majority of the people were against the issue of same-sex marriage licensing among them being the Commonwealth and Department of Public Health. In order to understand why majority of opinion represented judicial activism, it is important to understand the aspect of marriage. The Marriage Issue The decree of marriage licensing is both a public records and gatekeeping decree, which lays down minimum requirements for acquiring a marriage license and guides town and city clerks, the department of public health and the registrar to remain and maintain some crucial records of civil marriages. M.G.L.A. c. 207, §§ 19, 20. If the Department of Public Health and Commonwealth were against same-sex marriage and they are the same people who are issued with the qualifications of marriage license, then it means that the judgment was indeed wrong (Katie 111). The judgment was based on the Massachusetts constitution, which supports same-sex marriage, but it never considered the entire United States constitution, which opposes it. M.G.L.A. c. 207, §§ 19, 20. Besides, ever since the earlier days, marriage licensing was never open and vulnerable of interpretation authorizing “qualified same sex couples” to acquire marriage licenses. This means that the use of undefined ordinary-law term “marriage” by the legislation slots in its ordinary principle and quotidian connotation about genders of marriage spouse, and silence of consanguinity stipulations of decree with admiration to consanguinity of same sex marriage candidates demonstrated legislative intention to deny licensing of same-sex couples. Therefore, it is clear that what was done in Massachusetts Constitution is that the legislatures used their own quotidian meaning and common law about gender to come up with such a law that permits same-sex marriage. M.G.L.A. c. 207, §§ 19, 20. Such constitution need to be amended and correct such mistakes because they are misleading to people (Kiritsy 62). This is the reason as to why majority of opinion was represented by judicial activism that were against the Massachusetts constitution (Katie 83). Moreover, from centuries ago, people believed that marriage is a religious aspect and should be carried out according to the religious rules and principles. However, according to the Massachusetts constitution “gay marriage” decision’ “barred access to the benefits, protections and requirements of civil marriage, an individual who gets into an intimate, elite union with another individual of same sex is randomly divested of membership in one of our community’s most cherished and awarding institutions. Those elite are discordant with the constitutional rules of admiration for personal autonomy and equality under law.” (Levenson 113) What this statement means is that it is very wrong to deny any person the right to personal autonomy in any respect. However, a person should not just do anything that does not abide by the principles of the land and ethnic values simply because every person has the right to independence. That is very wrong and it resists the religious principles about marriage. It does not matter which kind of religion it is, be it Christianity, Muslim or even Buddhism, none of them supports marriage of same-sex. No wonder majority of opinion by the judicial activists was against issuing of marriage license to couples of same sex (Foderaro 192). Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts A statement of the Rights of the Occupants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts According to Article I of the Constitution of Commonwealth of Massachusetts, all people are born free and equivalent, and have some natural, vital and unalienable rights. Among these unalienable rights are the right of defending and enjoying their lives and freedom such as that of possessing, acquiring and protecting property as well as that of seeking and acquiring their security and happiness (Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, pp67). This law clearly defends the rights of people but there is nowhere written that people need to do what they feel is right to them without considering other ethical and religious aspects. Besides, there is no person in the world that was or who is born out of religious boundaries and ethical values, every person is born in a community, which abides by its communal ethical and religious values. Therefore, practicing or supporting same-sex marriage is denying both religious and ethical values of our communities. According to article II of the same, it is the duty of all people in the society, and at affirmed periods to Worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. This means that there was no subject molested, hurt or confined, in his person, estate or liberty for worshipping the Supreme Being (Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, pp63). The worshipping should be in a way and season most agreeable to the determinant of his own scruples or for his religious profession or emotions. The article winds up by stating that all these things should be done in a manner that does not disrupt public peace or hinder other people in their religious worship or ethical values. According to this article, it is clear that same-sex marriage is not good, is obstruction of other peoples’ religious worship, and values (Des Moines Register 67). This means that Commonwealth and Department of Public Health were very right to oppose the licensing of same-sex marriage because it is a display of ignorance and disobedience to ethical and religious values of society. Finally yet importantly, the basic definition of marriage is the lawful union of a man and woman as companions, Black’s Law Dictionary 986 (7th ed. 1999). According to Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48, 52 (1810), marriage law refers to an engagement through which a single guy and a single lady of adequate discretion accept and take each other as husband and wife. These are the basic definitions of marriage and there is nowhere marriage is defined as a man and man or a woman and a woman coming together as husband and wife or vice versa (New York Times, pp56). Therefore, the definition itself rules out the arguments by Plaintiffs. To add on that, the Massachusetts constitution also supports these definitions of marriage showing that the plaintiffs support is minimal. It is unreasonable to think that legislative procedure are insufficient to effectuate legal opportunities in retort to evolving proof, social values and observations or fairness on the matter of same-sex relationships (Jurnal 203). Intentional consideration of, and augmentation response to hurriedly developing scientific and social knowledge is the standard of the political procedure – that it may appear laboriously slow to people who are already convinced by the argument in support of change was never an adequate foundation to conclude that the procedures were constitutionally infirm. Massachusetts Fed'n of Teachers v. Board of Educ., 436 Mass. 763, 778 (2002). Therefore, the Plaintiffs were very wrong in their argument and the entire case was wrong because the ruling was in favor of the Plaintiffs after they pleaded and request granted. Conclusion The Massachusetts Constitution states that all people must have equal dignity, and rights which means that it does not allow development of a second-class citizens. The Plaintiffs relied on this statement to file a case against the Department of Public Health and Commonwealth for their denial of marriage license. However, the Commonwealth and Department of Public Health relied on the US constitution which does not support marriage or same-sex. Besides, they value ethical values and religious principles that are greatly ignored by the Plaintiffs. Under the aspect of marriage, the plaintiffs greatly ignored the basic definition of marriage, which is in the Black’s Law Dictionary as well as in both Commonwealth and Massachusetts’ constitutions. The definition states, marriage is an engagement through which a single man and a single lady of adequate discretion accept and take each other as husband and wife. Therefore, it is clear that the judgment in the Supreme Judicial Court was wrong in its judgment and that the majority of opinion represented the judicial activism. Works Cited Boston Globe: Michael Levenson, "SJC nominee tells of threats," Washington, D.C, 2010. Print. Bay Windows: Laura Kiritsy, "Goodridge celebrates its paper anniversary," New York press, 2004. Print. Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly: SJC: Nonresident gays can't marry; chaos is predicted, 2006. Lewis, Raphael. "After Vote, Both Sides in Debate Energized". Boston Globe, 2005. Print. New York Times: Lisa W. Foderaro, "Gay Marriages Begin in Connecticut," New York press, 2008. Print. Vermont Public Radio: "Same-sex couples ties the knot at midnight," California Publication, 2009. Print. JD Jurnal: "Gay Divorce Denied," the California publication, 2010. Print. New York Times "Hillary Goodridge, Julie Goodridge". New York, 2004. Print. Zezima, Katie. "Same-Sex Marriage Plaintiffs Separate". New York Times, 2006. Print. Levenson, Michael. "After 2 Years, Same-Sex Marriage Icons Split Up". Boston Globe, 2009. Print. New York Times: Pam Belluck, "Same-Sex Marriage: The Overview; Marriage by Gays Gains Big Victory in Massachusetts," 2003. Print. Des Moines Register: "Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman," New York press, 2009. Print. Read More