The Time Is Ripe

By Russell Shaw
Herald Columnist
(From the issue of 12/11/03)

Do you think people get married to have children? Think again. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts wishes you to know you’re wrong.

"It is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of marriage," Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall wrote for the majority in a 4-3 decision propelling Massachusetts — and perhaps the nation — to the brink of legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Just stop and reflect on that.

Four Massachusetts judges, out of a panel numbering seven, apparently felt no reluctance about plunging their state and the United States into a new round of fierce cultural-moral conflict for the sake of imposing their personal ideology on the rest of us.

The central notion here is that marriage is the creature of the state. As Justice Marshall put it, "the government creates civil marriage." Did you also suppose that marriage arises from human nature and pre-exists any government fiat? Forget about that, too.

The Catholic Church teaches that procreation and the loving relationship of husband and wife are by nature the two primary ends of marriage. It also teaches that marriage is by nature a relationship between a man and a woman. The Magisterium of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts now teaches something else.

People sometimes claim to detect arrogance in our courts. People are right.

Justice Marshall’s unblushing imposition of her philosophical views about marriage mirrors the awful model of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Back in 1992, in a strikingly arbitrary decision that upheld legalized abortion (Planned Parenthood v. Casey), Justices Kennedy, O’Connor and Souter delivered themselves of this bit of pseudo-wisdom: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

Supreme Court commentators have chuckled over that for 11 years. But Kennedy quoted the passage with evident pride last June in a case (Lawrence v. Texas) overturning laws against sodomy.

All the same, Kennedy and O’Connor offered soothing assurances in that decision that overturning sodomy laws had no bearing on gay marriage. It seems they neglected to tell Massachusetts’ Marshall, who found inspiration in Lawrence in making her argument for it.

Justice Marshall and her three colleagues have given the Massachusetts legislature six months to work out details of legalizing same-sex marriage. It seems likely that the legislature will. Once same-sex "marriage" begins in Massachusetts, the crisis will spread by ripple effect to other states as gay couples who’ve gotten "married" there move and demand recognition of their unions. Down this road lies another ruling by the Supreme Court.

There’s a foolproof way to bring this risky, disruptive process to a screeching halt — amend the Constitution to say that recognizing same-sex unions as marriages just won’t wash.

A Federal Marriage Amendment for this purpose already has 100 co-sponsors of both parties in the House. It was introduced in the Senate just before Thanksgiving by Senators Allard, Sessions and Brownback. It is fiercely opposed by gay activist groups and media like The New York Times and The Washington Post.

President Bush says he supports traditional marriage, but he hasn’t backed the amendment — yet. After the Supreme Court decision last June a White House lawyer told me his analysis showed that the amendment was the only way to go. White House sources say it will be endorsed when the time is ripe.

Message to the White House: The time is ripe.

Copyright ©2003 Arlington Catholic Herald.  All rights reserved.