4 and half pages History final paper

OUTLINE of Arguments :

Massachusetts Same Sex Civil Marriage Case:

GOODRIDGE vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH [Nov. 2003]

MARRIAGE IS:

1) A Vital Social Institution:

“Marriage is a vital social institution. . . .

Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person

who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is

arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and

cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional

principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law.”

2) “Civil Marriage is and has been . . . A Wholly Secular [non religious] Institution”

3) “Among Life’s Most Momentous Acts of Self Definition”

4) ”A Vital Right essential to . . . the pursuit of happiness”

THE COURT’S COMPARISON:

5)Comparable to 1967 U.S. Decision Overturning Laws Forbidding Interracial Marriage (Loving v. Virginia)

“the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of ones choice. . . .”

THE COURT ANSWERS THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST SAME SEX MARRIAGE:

6) Procreation not privileged

“Our laws of civil marriage do not privilege procreative heterosexual intercourse. . . . People who cannot stir from their deathbed may marry.”

7) Heterosexual Marriage Not Undermined

“Recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite sex marriage, any more than recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of a different race devalues the marriage of a person who marries someone of her own race. “

8) Marriage is an Evolving Paradigm & Alarms Are Not New.

Previous changes include:

a) Going beyond the common law: the expansion of the rights of married women

b) overturning laws against interracial marriage

c) the introduction of "nofault" divorce.

9)SINCE NOT ALLOWING SAME SEX CIVIL MARRIAGE CAUSES:

“A Deep and Scarring Hardship”

10) THEREFORE:

“We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. . . . “