Jewish World Review March 10, 2003 / 6 Adar II, 5763

Jeff Jacoby

Jeff Jacoby
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Changing the definition of marriage | During the oral argument in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, the Massachusetts lawsuit aimed at legalizing same-sex marriage, it was Justice Martha Sosman of the state's Supreme Judicial Court who put her finger on the crux of the case.

"Could it not also be framed," she asked Mary Bonauto, the lawyer for the gay and lesbian plaintiffs, that "you're seeking to change the definition of what the institution of marriage is?" After all there have been right-to-marry cases before, involving (for example) interracial couples, prison inmates, or the mentally retarded. But, Sosman noted, they "have not changed . . . the historical fundamental definition of what the institution is."

That's it in a nutshell. The plaintiffs are not asking for the right to marry, for each of them has exactly the same marriage rights as every other Massachusetts adult. What they really seek is to alter the legal definition of "marriage" so it encompasses something it has never encompassed before: same-sex unions.

Has the time for that alteration arrived? A case for it can certainly be made. After all, family law has changed profoundly in recent decades -- think of no-fault divorce, adoption by same-sex couples, or the expanded rights of single parents -- and it has become almost a mainstream opinion that the meaning of marriage should change with it. A forthright call for amending the marriage statutes so that men can marry men and women can marry women would be received sympathetically by a great many people.

But advocates of same-sex marriage who have embarked on a litigation strategy would rather not be forthright. To Sosman's observation that the plaintiffs' real goal is to change the definition of marriage, Bonauto replied, "I would respectfully disagree, your honor." She had no choice. To agree would have been to concede that her clients were before the wrong branch of government: It is the job of the Legislature, not the courts, to configure the structures of state law.

To agree would have been to concede something else, too -- something even more damaging to the plaintiffs' case: The changes wouldn't stop with same-sex couples.

There are three core elements to a legal marriage: It must be a union of (1) two people (2) of the opposite sex (3) who are not related. The Goodridge plaintiffs are asking the SJC to strike No. 2 -- to rule that denying a couple a marriage license because they are both men or both women is to violate their civil rights. "Because marriage is so centrally about an individual's love and commitment," their brief argues, "it is embraced within the sphere of privacy and self-determination protected by the liberty and due process clauses of the Massachusetets Constitution."

But if Core Element No. 2 can be struck down for that reason, so can No. 1 and No. 3. If the state has no right to deny a marriage license to would-be spouses of the same sex, on what reasonable grounds could it deny a marriage to would-be spouses from the same family? Or to would-be spouses who happen to number three or four instead of two?

Again it was Sosman who pointed out the obvious. If the ban on same-sex marriage is an unconstitutional restriction, she asked, why not the ban on polygamy? "What would the difference be? These are . . . consenting adults, saying this is the relationship we want."

Bonauto's answer was telling: She said that neither the Legislature nor the SJC had ever suggested that a marriage could comprise more than two people. The justices were kind enough not to point out that until fairly recently, no one had ever suggested that a marriage could comprise people of the same sex, either. But the implication of her words was unmistakable: Should the day come when demands for legalized polygamy (or polyandry) are heard, they would have to be taken seriously.

Other supporters of same-sex marriage imply the same thing. "To the best of my knowledge," writes Andrew Sullivan, one of the movement's most articulate proponents, "there is no polygamists' rights organization poised to exploit same-sex marriage to return the republic to polygamous abandon." Behind the tone of ridicule is an evasion: We don't have to talk about legalizing multispouse marriages, Sullivan is saying, because no one is making an issue of it. But you don't have to look very far to find advocates who are poised to do just that. Type the word "polyamory" into a search engine and see where it leads you. Or look up the ACLU's position on "plural marriage."

Is same-sex marriage a good idea? I think it is quite a bad idea, but I understand the arguments in its favor. And I can sympathize with committed gay and lesbian couples who want to change the definition of marriage in order to partake of its benefits.

But sometimes change destroys. No structure can stand for long when its bearing wall is removed. The bearing wall of marriage -- its central and universal defining characteristic -- is its heterosexuality. Knock that down, and what is left will become a ruin.

Like this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist. Comment by clicking here.

03/07/03: Liberate Iraq -- even with unclean hands
03/03/03: Why talk radio tilts right
02/21/03: A boost for Saddam
02/10/03: On outing Kerry
02/06/03: The neverending voyage
02/03/03: This hasn't been a 'rush to war'
01/31/03: Killing the terror regimes
01/29/03: How not to win the war
01/24/03: The UN's moral irrelevance
01/22/03: Musings, random and otherwise
01/17/03: The Sharpton hypocrisy
01/13/03: The fig leaf of 'diversity'
01/10/03: Israeli restraint makes terrorism more likely
01/02/03: The double standard on political hate speech
12/30/02: Good for the spirit, good for the body
12/23/02: The college president who owes a greater duty to a fugitive serial killer than the public or to the law
12/20/02: The death penalty by the numbers
12/16/02: Yes, Virginia, there is (still) a liberal media bias
12/03/02: On the brink of regime change --- in Iran
11/27/02: Light's victory over darkness
11/25/02: A 'Republican' lesson from a Democratic convention
11/22/02: The slippery senator
11/18/02: The campus 'diversity' fraud
11/01/02: Saddam's shop of horrors
10/24/02: Musings, random and otherwise
10/17/02: Jimma's ignoble prize
10/14/02: New Jersey's bigot laureate
10/11/02: Today it is libs who are most likely to demand the silencing of speech they disapprove of
10/04/02: Learning English from Day 1
09/30/02: The world will follow us to war
09/27/02: The face of antisemitism
09/20/02: Starving time in Zimbabwe
09/14/02: Against moral confusion / 9-12-2002
09/03/02: With 'eternal friends' like these
08/30/02: Enriching survivors was a costly mistake
08/26/02: John Kerry's absent passion
08/23/02: Bonnie, get your gun
08/19/02: A screenwriter's remorse
07/29/02: The real abortion extremists
07/26/02: Another round of Kemp-Roth
07/19/02: Jews among Arabs, Arabs among Jews
07/15/02: Musings, random and otherwise
07/12/02: The new civil rights champions
07/03/02: Riding the rails
07/01/02: The prerequisite to peace
06/24/02: Frisking AlGore
06/17/02: Offense, not defense, is the key to homeland security
06/14/02: Looking at the horror
06/07/02: The cost of a death-penalty moratorium
06/03/02: Executing 'children,' and other death-penalty myths
05/29/02: A real threat?
05/24/02: The message in Arafat's headdress
05/20/02: (Mis)playing the popularity card
05/10/02: Outspoken, Muslim -- and moderate
05/10/02: The heroes in Castro's jails
05/06/02: The disappearing history term paper
05/03/02: Musings, random and otherwise
04/29/02: The canary in Europe's mine
04/15/02: Powell's crazy mission
04/12/02: The slavery reparations hustle
04/08/02: Peace at any price = war
03/26/02: Decency matters most, Caleb
03/22/02: The U.S. embargo and Cuba's future
03/19/02: The keepers of Cuba's conscience
03/15/02: A walk in Havana
02/26/02: Buchanan's lament
02/12/02: What 'peace' means to Arafat
02/05/02: Antismoking: Who pays?
02/01/02: Turn the Saudis
01/25/02: Making MLK cry
01/21/02: Ted to tax cut: Drop dead
01/18/02: Musings random and otherwise
01/14/02: An ultimatum to Saudi Arabia
01/11/02: Friendship, Saudi-style
01/07/02: Shakedown at Harvard
01/04/02: More guns, more safety
01/02/02: Smears and slanders from the Left
12/28/01: Congress gives to others -- and itself
12/24/01: The littlest peacemakers
12/20/01: How to condemn terror
12/18/01: Greenland once was
12/14/01: Parents who never said ''no''
12/11/01: Wit and (economic) wisdom
12/04/01: The war against Israel goes on
11/30/01: Tribunals, motorcycles -- and freedom
11/19/01: Friendship and the House of Saud
11/12/01: The Justice Department's unjust monopoly
11/09/01: Muslim, but not extremist
11/02/01: Too good for Oprah
10/29/01: Journalism and the 'neutrality fetish'
10/26/01: Derail these subsidies
10/22/01: Good and evil in the New York Times
10/15/01: Rush Limbaugh's ear
10/08/01: With allies like these
10/01/01: An unpardonable act
09/25/01: Speaking out against terror
09/21/01: What the terrorists saw
09/17/01: Calling evil by its name
09/13/01: Our enemies mean what they say
09/04/01: The real bigots
08/31/01: Shrugging at genocide
08/28/01: Big Brother's privacy -- or ours?
08/24/01: The mufti's message of hate
08/21/01: Remembering the 'Wall of Shame'
08/16/01: If I were the editor ...
08/14/01: If I were the Transportation Czar ...
08/10/01: Import quotas 'steel' from us all
08/07/01: Is gay "marriage" a threat?
08/03/01: A colorblind nominee
07/27/01: Eminent-domain tortures
07/24/01: On protecting the flag ... and drivers ... and immigrants
07/20/01: Dying for better mileage
07/17/01: Why Americans would rather drive
07/13/01: Do these cabbies look like bigots?
07/10/01: 'Defeated in the bedroom'
07/06/01: Who's white? Who's Hispanic? Who cares?
07/02/01: Big(oted) man on campus
06/29/01: Still appeasing China's dictators
06/21/01: Cuban liberty: A test for Bush
06/19/01: The feeble 'arguments' against capital punishment
06/12/01: What energy crisis?
06/08/01: A jewel in the crown of self-government
05/31/01: The settlement myth
05/25/01: An award JFK would have liked
05/22/01: No Internet taxes? No problem
05/18/01: Heather has five mommies (and a daddy)
05/15/01: An execution, not a lynching
05/11/01: Losing the common tongue
05/08/01: Olympics 2008: Say no to Beijing
05/04/01: Do welfare mothers a kindness: Make them work
05/01/01: Another man's child
04/24/01: Sharon should have said no
04/02/01: The Inhumane Society
03/30/01: To have a friend, Caleb, be a friend
03/27/01: Is Chief Wahoo racist?
03/22/01: Ending the Clinton appeasement
03/20/01: They're coming for you
03/16/01: Kennedy v. Kennedy
03/13/01: We should see McVeigh die
03/09/01: The Taliban's wrecking job
03/07/01: The No. 1 reason to cut taxes
03/02/01: A Harvard candidate's silence on free speech
02/27/01: A lesson from Birmingham jail
02/20/01: How Jimmy Carter got his good name back
02/15/01: Cashing in on the presidency
02/09/01: The debt for slavery -- and for freedom
02/06/01: The reparations calculation
02/01/01: The freedom not to say 'amen'
01/29/01: Chavez's 'hypocrisy': Take a closer look
01/26/01: Good-bye, good riddance
01/23/01: When everything changed (mostly for the better)
01/19/01: The real zealots
01/16/01: Pardon Clinton?
01/11/01: The fanaticism of Linda Chavez
01/09/01: When Jerusalem was divided
12/29/00 Liberal hate speech, 2000
12/15/00Does the Constitution expect poor children be condemned to lousy government schools?
12/08/00 Powell is wrong man to run State Department
12/05/00 The 'MCAS' teens give each other
12/01/00 Turning his back on the Vietnamese -- again
11/23/00 Why were the Pilgrims thankful?
11/21/00 The fruit of this 'peace process' is war
11/13/00 Unleashing the lawyers
11/17/00 Gore's mark on history
40 reasons to say NO to Gore

© 2002, Boston Globe