Replies

"By simply defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman, there is no need to commit to those legal definitions."

You are still stuck on this, aren't you?

We already know that earlier legal precedent has established that the right to marry the person of one's choice is "one of the basic civil rights of man" (Loving v. Virginia, Chief Justice Earl Warren writing the majority opinion), so there's no "simply" doing anything of the sort you keep harping on.

You have this idea that what has already been defined as one of the "basic civil rights" of man, can be violated by "simply" violating it!

"...the Massachusetts SJC has done; i.e. declare the definition itself unconstitutional."

Because the Massachusetts State Constitution violates the civil rights of a segment of the population (homosexuals) according to the definition of the right to marry set forth in Loving v. Virginia by the SCOTUS.

"...the issue is whether the laws of the people are required to treat the homosexuality of gay couples as equal in the eyes of the law to the heterosexuality of married couples."

No, the issue is whether the people have a right to treat them differently based on a guideline that isn't applied to heterosexual couples...whether there will be an issue from the marriage or not.

By the way, a homosexual couple can procreate the same way any childless heterosexual couple can procreate, by means of surrogates, in vitro fertilization, etc.

Unless you invalidate these methods of procreation to all citizens, then set the ability to procreate as a standard for licensing of all citizens wishing to receive a marriage license, the State will be violating the basic civil right to marry the person of one's choice as defined by Loving v. Virginia.

Our side always enters legal fights as if they are to be fought in a vacuum where the other side has no argument of any merit, and when they win and we sink in the dark waters of defeat, we instantly yell "ACTIVIST", when in fact, we should be kicking ourselves in the butt for not having seen the damned iceberg in our path.

Like it or not, the decision of the Massachusetts State Supreme Court is based on solid legal precedent.

OK you've summarized the argument of the Massachusetts SJC. If I accepted their logic, we wouldn't be debating anything. I take the side of the dissents. I believe this gives me a huge advantage, because their arguments make much more sense. The dissent is essentially that there is a rational basis for allowing the legislature to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. I expect more from you than just repeating your belief that there is no such rational basis.

Using that definition in law does not create a second-class citizen of someone who:
a. does not want to marry a person of the opposite sex
b. would like to form a union with a person of the same-sex and have the state treat that union exactly as it does marriage.