Friday, February 06, 2004
Unusual Sparring Between Court Majority and Dissenters
The Massachusetts SC certainly has legislated from the bench. As long as one operationally defines "legislating from the bench" as changing laws already enacted or "enacting" laws that do not yet exist. Certainly, the court did the second one.
But aren't the courts there to check the legislature? In many cases I believe the courts are used by idealogues to impose upon the country their own unresolved psychic conflicts (see Pledge of Allegiance), but in this case, I believe the court did the correct thing.
Ask yourself whether you'd accept a wedding invitation from a gay friend or relative. Or what you would do if you learned of a relative, friend or mentor who was gay. These are clear sources of cognitive dissonance which can not be resolved easily.
Now to tactics. A common pro-gay marriage argument is that the legality should be left up to the individual states to decide whether or not in a states' rights Trojan Horse. I say Trojan Horse because anyone with a basic understanding of how to make it a federal, and thus USSC, issue knows that all a gay married couple from Massachusetts needs to do is go across the Connecticut (or New York or Rhode Island or NEw Hampshire or Maine) border and go to a hospital.
With a family health policy, the covered spouse enters the hospital. Once the insurance company denies coverage because gay marriage is not legally recognized, the issue becomes an issue of the Interstate Commerce clause.
This will send it to up the federal court system ladder, and Bingo!, it's a USSC issue.
The Massachusetts SC certainly has legislated from the bench. As long as one operationally defines "legislating from the bench" as changing laws already enacted or "enacting" laws that do not yet exist. Certainly, the court did the second one.
But aren't the courts there to check the legislature? In many cases I believe the courts are used by idealogues to impose upon the country their own unresolved psychic conflicts (see Pledge of Allegiance), but in this case, I believe the court did the correct thing.
Ask yourself whether you'd accept a wedding invitation from a gay friend or relative. Or what you would do if you learned of a relative, friend or mentor who was gay. These are clear sources of cognitive dissonance which can not be resolved easily.
Now to tactics. A common pro-gay marriage argument is that the legality should be left up to the individual states to decide whether or not in a states' rights Trojan Horse. I say Trojan Horse because anyone with a basic understanding of how to make it a federal, and thus USSC, issue knows that all a gay married couple from Massachusetts needs to do is go across the Connecticut (or New York or Rhode Island or NEw Hampshire or Maine) border and go to a hospital.
With a family health policy, the covered spouse enters the hospital. Once the insurance company denies coverage because gay marriage is not legally recognized, the issue becomes an issue of the Interstate Commerce clause.
This will send it to up the federal court system ladder, and Bingo!, it's a USSC issue.
Comments:
Post a Comment
