Mayday!
Happy Law Day, everyone!
Somewhere along the line, it was decided by those wily Powers that Be that May 1, known worldwide as May Day in commemoration of the Haymarket Riot over workers' rights (or over anarchists' tussles with police, your choice) in Chicago, Ill., this week in 1886, would be celebrated as "Law Day" here in the U.S.
This year we're especially reflecting on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark ruling that applied the 14th Amendment's equal protection language to the question of whether "separate but equal" was, in fact, equal.
Various bar associations and district attorneys, as well as the legal apparatus here in Woosta, have signed on board with Law Day as a way to teach our kids that "obedience to law is liberty," as it says on the front of Woosta Courthouse. This has attracted press attention in this morning's paper.
Perhaps someone ought to shout a "mayday," however, as the topic of homosexual marriage has come up much too often in discussion of Brown v. BOE. Predictably, commemorations in Massachusetts turned into a quote-op for activists on the homosexual marriage issue. My newspaper's two (two!) stories about Law Day both made the front page and included one reporter's before-the-jump contention that there are "unmistakable similarities between the 1954 [Brown] decision and a recent ruling by the SJC that will give same-sex couples the right to marry."
In a word, no. While some opponents of the court's decision argue, rather hysterically, that it is an example of moral corruption for which we will all be smote and turned into pillars of salt, the ones who are intellectually on board with this thing called "America" say, I believe rightly, that the state's Supreme Judicial Court overstepped its bounds in this case.
That doesn't stop the other story's writer from implying that the SJC ruling is in line with the philosphy of the Warren Court, which she quotes a legal studies professor as saying "established itself as the final arbiter." I had always thought that the court established itself as the final arbiter 150 years earlier in Marbury v. Madison, but what do I know?
Brown v. BOE is simply not comparable to Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the SJC decision. Brown v. BOE followed and relied upon the 14th Amendment, which was adopted with the intent of providing equal protection of the laws for racial minorities, who until that point had been treated as second-class citizens (or worse). Goodridge, on the other hand, completely invents a new "right" by redefining the word "marriage."
It would be one thing if homosexuals had been denied the right to marriage, as traditionally understood -- i.e., if "straight" men had been allowed to marry women, but "gay" men had not been allowed to marry women. But marriage, the word, means a union of a man and a woman. The lawmakers who granted tax breaks or legal benefits to marriage did so in the understanding that they were contributing to the man-and-woman version of marriage.
If our increasingly socially liberal world wants to change the definition of marriage, well, go ahead and do it. But do it the right way. This is a change in our understanding of rights and in our state (or national) policy. It should have been done through the Legislature.
The newspaper quotes a Northeastern University law professor, ostensibly defending the SJC's actions in the face of widespread criticism, as saying: "we need some part of the process that stands aside from the pressures of politics. If we don't have that kind of independent judicial role, constitutions end up meaning very little."
With all due respect, professor, if we keep changing the meaning of words and ignoring the separation of powers as it pertains to limits on the courts, constitutions end up meaning even less.
Originally posted to S.E.D.H.E..
Somewhere along the line, it was decided by those wily Powers that Be that May 1, known worldwide as May Day in commemoration of the Haymarket Riot over workers' rights (or over anarchists' tussles with police, your choice) in Chicago, Ill., this week in 1886, would be celebrated as "Law Day" here in the U.S.
This year we're especially reflecting on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark ruling that applied the 14th Amendment's equal protection language to the question of whether "separate but equal" was, in fact, equal.
Various bar associations and district attorneys, as well as the legal apparatus here in Woosta, have signed on board with Law Day as a way to teach our kids that "obedience to law is liberty," as it says on the front of Woosta Courthouse. This has attracted press attention in this morning's paper.
Perhaps someone ought to shout a "mayday," however, as the topic of homosexual marriage has come up much too often in discussion of Brown v. BOE. Predictably, commemorations in Massachusetts turned into a quote-op for activists on the homosexual marriage issue. My newspaper's two (two!) stories about Law Day both made the front page and included one reporter's before-the-jump contention that there are "unmistakable similarities between the 1954 [Brown] decision and a recent ruling by the SJC that will give same-sex couples the right to marry."
In a word, no. While some opponents of the court's decision argue, rather hysterically, that it is an example of moral corruption for which we will all be smote and turned into pillars of salt, the ones who are intellectually on board with this thing called "America" say, I believe rightly, that the state's Supreme Judicial Court overstepped its bounds in this case.
That doesn't stop the other story's writer from implying that the SJC ruling is in line with the philosphy of the Warren Court, which she quotes a legal studies professor as saying "established itself as the final arbiter." I had always thought that the court established itself as the final arbiter 150 years earlier in Marbury v. Madison, but what do I know?
Brown v. BOE is simply not comparable to Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the SJC decision. Brown v. BOE followed and relied upon the 14th Amendment, which was adopted with the intent of providing equal protection of the laws for racial minorities, who until that point had been treated as second-class citizens (or worse). Goodridge, on the other hand, completely invents a new "right" by redefining the word "marriage."
It would be one thing if homosexuals had been denied the right to marriage, as traditionally understood -- i.e., if "straight" men had been allowed to marry women, but "gay" men had not been allowed to marry women. But marriage, the word, means a union of a man and a woman. The lawmakers who granted tax breaks or legal benefits to marriage did so in the understanding that they were contributing to the man-and-woman version of marriage.
If our increasingly socially liberal world wants to change the definition of marriage, well, go ahead and do it. But do it the right way. This is a change in our understanding of rights and in our state (or national) policy. It should have been done through the Legislature.
The newspaper quotes a Northeastern University law professor, ostensibly defending the SJC's actions in the face of widespread criticism, as saying: "we need some part of the process that stands aside from the pressures of politics. If we don't have that kind of independent judicial role, constitutions end up meaning very little."
With all due respect, professor, if we keep changing the meaning of words and ignoring the separation of powers as it pertains to limits on the courts, constitutions end up meaning even less.
Originally posted to S.E.D.H.E..
Day by Day
Quotidian quips of four sharp wits with bad posture ... © by Chris Muir.
