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).
Dance much? This is not what you originally claimed when I called you out for misrepresenting the opinion. Your claim was this:
Quite clearly, you were wrong, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I quote again, for the third time, your original claim:
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.
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
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.
“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?
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?
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?
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.
For what it’s worth this article by United Press International Legal Affairs Correspondent Michael Kirkland, says that Lawrence was not part of the basis for the decision.
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.
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.