# Lawrence-\>Gay Marriage-\>Plural Marriage **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 19, 2003, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-gay-marriage-plural-marriage/214051 "2003-11-19T05:27:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2003, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-gay-marriage-plural-marriage/214051/41 "2003-11-20T15:23:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by schplebordnik \* > Oh, and if you read the very next paragraph to the one you cited, minty you will see that when discussing what is covered by the “right of privacy” in the Mass. Constitution, they cite nothing but S. Ct. cases construing the “right of privacy” under the U.S. Constitution. This is so patently false that I am having serious doubts about your good faith. The court cites three separate Massachusetts opinions in that paragraph. _Bachrach v. Secretary of the Commonwealth_, 382 Mass. 268, 273 (1981), and _Dalli v. Board of Educ._, 358 Mass. 753, 759 (1971), are cited for the proposition that The individual liberty and equality safeguards of the Massachusetts Constitution protect both ‘freedom from’ unwarranted government intrusion into protected spheres of life and ‘freedom to’ partake in benefits created by the State for the common good." _Opinion of the Justices_, 211 Mass. 618, 619 (1912), is then quoted for the proposition that “Absolute equality before the law is a fundamental principle of our own Constitution.” Your criticism also ignores the many Massachusetts opinions cited in the following paragraphs in support of Massachusetts constitutional principles. For example, _Commonwealth v. Henry’s Drywall Co._, 366 Mass. 539, 542 (1974) (“The Massachusetts Constitution requires, at a minimum, that the exercise of the State’s regulatory authority not be ‘arbitrary or capricious.’”); _Rushworth v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles_, 413 Mass. 265, 270 (1992) (“Under both the equality and liberty guarantees, regulatory authority must, at very least, serve ‘a legitimate purpose in a rational way’; a statute must ‘bear reasonable relation to a permissible legislative objective.’”); _Massachusetts Fed’n of Teachers v. Board of Educ._, 436 Mass. 763, 778 (2002) (equal protection); _Coffee-Rich, Inc. v. Commissioner of Pub. Health_, 348 Mass. 414, 422 (1965) (due process). > [@](#): > > And I don’t see any citations to Mass. decisions showing that the right to marry, procreate, have sex, cohabit, etc. have been construed any broader than what the S. Ct. has set forth. Dance much? This is not what you originally claimed when I called you out for misrepresenting the opinion. Your claim was this: > [@](#): > > And don’t give me the old “it’s a decision interpreting the Mass. Constition” argument – clearly, they are interpreting the “right of privacy” in both the US and Mass. Constitutions to be coextensive. Quite clearly, you were wrong, whether intentionally or unintentionally. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2003, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-gay-marriage-plural-marriage/214051/42 "2003-11-20T15:30:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by schplebordnik \* > If the state can’t demean homosexual sex by making it illegal, and – as in Loving – can’t impinge upon the right of citizens who to choose to marry, it seems that Goodridge must follow under the US Constitution (which the Mass. court found, via the essentially coextensive Mass. Constitution). Same rational applies to plural marriage. I see no way not to compel that result, except for resorting to the same form of “moral” choices that were struck down in Lawrence. at least 3 posts here have given reasons why polygamy doesn’t follow the same guidelines as same-sex marriages, without ever mentioning morality. could you provide some way you think courts could apply the _Goodridge_ decision to polygamy laws? ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2003, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-gay-marriage-plural-marriage/214051/43 "2003-11-20T21:42:19Z")
To add to **KellyM** ’s comments, it’s a _felony_ in, I believe, Wisconsin, to _say anything_ suggesting that polygamy might be an acceptable part of a person’s life. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2003, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-gay-marriage-plural-marriage/214051/44 "2003-11-20T22:50:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by schplebordnik \* > Sorry, your flag burning/people burning analogy isn’t apropopos. The Court has for quite some time construed conduct as speech, but never conduct that amounts to either assault or battery. And that is relevant how? > [@](#): > > And assault and battery law are content neutral and don’t involve those always-ambiguous “moral” choices. Assault is not a moral choice? That’s just bizarre. [quote] The point about Lawrence is that it says that since marriage is already a fundamental right (established a long time ago, most famously in Loving v. Virginia)[/quotte] Can you quote the part of Lawrence which references Loving? > [@](#): > > Again, I don’t see how, under that rationale, the state may demean the existence of people who wish to engage in 3- or 4- or n-way private sexual activities by making their private sexual conduct a crime And I don’t see how that’s relevant. I certainly agree that Lawrence may be used to strike down anti-orgy laws, if any exist, but that’s not the issue at hand. > [@](#): > > If the state can’t demean homosexual sex by making it illegal, and – as in Loving – can’t impinge upon the right of citizens who to choose to marry, it seems that Goodridge must follow under the US Constitution (which the Mass. court found, via the essentially coextensive Mass. Constitution). It quite a leap to go from not allowing the government to demean something to requiring it to honor it. It’s unconstitutional to allow newspapers to print pro-Bush editorials while prohibiting anti-Bush ones; that doesn’t mean the government is obligated to institute a national Criticize Bush Day. ---
**Author:** ![schplebordnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/91b2a8/32.png) [@schplebordnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/schplebordnik)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-gay-marriage-plural-marriage/214051/45 "2003-11-21T04:03:02Z")
minty: The paragraph in question – when discussing the right to privacy under the Mass. Constitution – cites nothing but U.S. Supreme Court decisions: “Whether and whom to marry, how to express sexual intimacy, and whether and how to establish a family–these are among the most basic of every individual’s liberty and due process rights. See, e.g., Lawrence, supra at 2481; Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152-153 (1973); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, supra.” Which is exactly what I said. Twice. In good faith. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-gay-marriage-plural-marriage/214051/46 "2003-11-21T04:12:35Z")
I quote again, for the third time, your original claim: > [@](#): > > And don’t give me the old “it’s a decision interpreting the Mass. Constition” argument – clearly, they are interpreting the “right of privacy” in both the US and Mass. Constitutions to be coextensive. Why don’t you just admit that you were wrong, and that they _did_ determine the case on the basis of the Massachusetts constitution, and that they reiterated a long line of precedent that says the Massachusetts Constitution provides broader protection than the U.S. Constitution on matters of individual privacy? Or are you really that desperate to prop up your ridiculous claim that _Lawrence_ approved all those things it distinguished that you’ll make up nonsense about the Massachusetts opinion? I’m positive that approach will work with the Troglodyte Right next election. 'Round here, however, we’re perfectly capable and willing to to a little reading to see through the lies. ---
**Author:** ![schplebordnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/91b2a8/32.png) [@schplebordnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/schplebordnik)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-gay-marriage-plural-marriage/214051/47 "2003-11-21T04:17:08Z")
Kelly: When you said Oregon had prosecuted people recently for fornication, it definitely threw me for a loop, as I am an Oregon lawyer, and just took their bar exam last year (after practicing for many years in another state). I couldn’t believe BarBri had never told me that! Good lord, what if they’dve asked a fornication question on the domestic law section of the exam! Don’t think you’re right though. This site says Oregon has no laws against fornication, adultery, or cohabitation: [http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united\_states/polygamy/index.shtml](http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/polygamy/index.shtml) Although it looks like a good number of other states do have such laws, including one that I’m licensed to practice in which I’m guessing probably has one of the highest rates of it going on. ---
**Author:** ![schplebordnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/91b2a8/32.png) [@schplebordnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/schplebordnik)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-gay-marriage-plural-marriage/214051/48 "2003-11-21T04:37:20Z")
“Why don’t you just admit that you were wrong, and that they did determine the case on the basis of the Massachusetts constitution,” Of course they decided it based upon the Massachussets constitution. I never said they didn’t. I said the decision, in interpreting the right of privacy using U.S. S. Ct. cases construing the right of privacy. Most notably Lawrence (which gets you about 90% there), and Loving (which gets you the other 10%). “and that they reiterated a long line of precedent that says the Massachusetts Constitution provides broader protection than the U.S. Constitution on matters of individual privacy?” Yes, they said that too. We are talking at cross purposes here. What I’m looking for is where the right of privacy (actually, to be truly accurate, I should say “fundamental rights,” as Loving I don’t believe is generally construed as a privacy case but relating to a related but differently articulated fundamental right to marry). Again, where precisely in the area of privacy (or fundamental rights) does the Mass. Constitution provide rights that are broader than those in the U.S. Constitution? ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-gay-marriage-plural-marriage/214051/49 "2003-11-21T04:39:04Z")
My apologies, apparently I got the wrong Northwest state. The offensively behaving state in this case is [Idaho](http://archive.aclu.org/news/w070696a.html), not Oregon. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-gay-marriage-plural-marriage/214051/50 "2003-11-21T04:48:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by schplebordnik \* > Most notably Lawrence (which gets you about 90% there) Sez you. Do you have some version of Lawrence that omits the part about how the decision had nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage, polygamy, and diddling sheep? Or do you just choose to ignore it because it permits you to build a bigger strawman? > [@](#): > > Again, where precisely in the area of privacy (or fundamental rights) does the Mass. Constitution provide rights that are broader than those in the U.S. Constitution? In the Massachusetts equivalents of the due process and equal protection clauses, of course. As interpreted by such expansive Massachusetts “privacy” cases as _Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Attorney Gen._, 424 Mass. 586, 590 (1997), and _Corning Glass Works v. Ann & Hope, Inc. of Danvers_, 363 Mass. 409, 416 (1973) (both cited for the proposition that “The Massachusetts Constitution protects matters of personal liberty against government incursion as zealously, and often more so, than does the Federal Constitution, even where both Constitutions employ essentially the same language.”). Did you miss those cases too? Or is this merely part of your campaign to ignore everything that doesn’t fit your political preconceptions? And please, by all means, resume your dance. ---
**Author:** ![schplebordnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/91b2a8/32.png) [@schplebordnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/schplebordnik)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-gay-marriage-plural-marriage/214051/51 "2003-11-21T05:16:42Z")
OK, here comes some very intricate dancing: Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Attorney Gen.: State strikes down requirement for parental notification that requires both parents be notified. “[W]e conclude that the two-parent requirement is unconstitutional in all instances. This was the conclusion of the United States Supreme Court in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990).” Let’s see now, I believe the tune I’m dancing to is “Mass. Constitution = U.S. Constition, when it comes to abortion, a privacy right.” OK, your turn to dance. For the life of me, I can’t find on-line a full version of the Corning Glass Works decision. Enlighten me as to what fundamental right was construed there, and how it was found to be more broadly protected than it is in the U.S. Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-gay-marriage-plural-marriage/214051/52 "2003-11-21T23:42:33Z")
For what it’s worth [this article](http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031119-125630-1404r) by United Press International Legal Affairs Correspondent Michael Kirkland, says that _Lawrence_ was not part of the basis for the decision. > [@](#): > > Don’t blame this week’s controversial decision – the one striking down Massachusetts’s ban against gay marriages – on last year’s ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States that guaranteed privacy in the bedroom. > > The ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was based strictly on the equal protection guarantee in that state’s Constitution and did not cite the U.S. Constitution or the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence vs. Texas that struck down the sodomy ban in the Lone Star State. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2003, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-gay-marriage-plural-marriage/214051/53 "2003-11-22T00:15:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by schplebordnik \* > “[W]e conclude that the two-parent requirement is unconstitutional in all instances. This was the conclusion of the United States Supreme Court in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990).” Let’s see now, I believe the tune I’m dancing to is “Mass. Constitution = U.S. Constition, when it comes to abortion, a privacy right.” I don’t think that the principle that everything part of due process recognized by the US Constitution must by recognized by the Mass. one is in dispute. Rather, what is in dispute is that nothing else must be recognized. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2003, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-gay-marriage-plural-marriage/214051/54 "2003-11-22T02:13:03Z")
_Corning Glass_ is, believe it or not, an antitrust case (state antitrust law, not federal). Corning sought to strike down the states prohibition on resale price maintenance as an unreasonable exercise of the state’s police power. Resale price maintenance is well-established as a big no-no under federal statutory law (as interpreted by the courts), so they had to make the police power claim under state law. The court acknowledged that the Mass. constitution often gives citizens greater rights than the federal constitution, but nevertheless ruled that the prohibition was permissible under the police power. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-gay-marriage-plural-marriage/214051.md?page=2)