Divorce Attorneys
Gay marriage decision penned by anti-apartheid veteran
|
|
Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, the first immigrant and first woman to lead the state’s 313-year-old Supreme Judicial Court, began her journey to the Massachusetts bench in South Africa. She was a white student leader of the anti-apartheid movement in the 1960s – a time when defiance led to bloodshed. “Justice is not hypothetical to me,” Marshall, 59, said earlier this year. Marshall was first appointed to the bench in 1996, after four years as general counsel and vice president of Harvard University. She became chief justice three years later. Her coming-of-age in the crucible of apartheid has had a profound influence on her actions as leader of the oldest appellate court in the Western hemisphere, according to her colleagues and legal observers, and can be seen in Tuesday’s decision granting gay couples the right to marry. “She is just passionately committed to the idea that second-class citizens and a permanent underclass is not only cruel to the people who find themselves at the bottom, but degrading and dehumanizing to those who happen to be at the top,” said Laurence H. Tribe, constitutional law specialist at Harvard Law School. “Her experience in South Africa has shaped her as a person and as a judge.” In the first paragraph of the 4-3 majority gay marriage opinion, Marshall states that the Massachusetts Constitution “affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals.” Later she writes “It forbids the creation of second-class citizens.” Even many of those who disagreed with her ultimate conclusion admired the legal path she took. “There’s no question that the analysis of the legal principals at stake is absolutely brilliant,” said attorney Roderick MacLeish, who represented students at Harvard when Marshall was general counsel and who believes the court went too far into an area better governed by the Legislature. “It will go down as one of the most significant decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court in the last 50 years.” Other critics, who believe that changing hundreds of years of marriage law will damage the fabric of society, argue that Marshall’s decision was not true to her lifelong fight against oppression. “I see this as the height of judicial tyranny, for one justice to so overlook the needs of children for the sake of pursuing her political agenda,” said Ron Crews, executive director of the Massachusetts Family Institute. “I’m just astounded by the audacity of her decision.” Even before Tuesday’s decision, Marshall was targeted by the opponents of gay marriage in Massachusetts, who filed suit against her in March claiming that she had violated the judicial code of conduct by making appearances before two organizations dedicated to women’s rights and one dedicated to gay rights. |
Related Articles from Attorney for Divorce
South Africa Same-Sex Marriage Law Sparks Intense Debate
South Africa's Minister of Home Affairs, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, presented the bill to the National Assembly, saying it addressed one of the inequalities left over from the apartheid era. "When we attained our democracy we sought to distinguish ourselves from an unjust, painful past by declaring that never again shall it be that any South African would be discriminated against on the basis of color, creed, culture and sex," she said.
Israeli Parliament Adopts Racist Marriage Laws
The current Israeli regime has provided further ammunition to those fighting for Palestinian sovereignty who have long promoted the slogan that “Zionism is racism” and a “form of apartheid.” This ammo entails a newly passed law affecting Palestinian marriages that mirrors those of our own southern racists, which provides measures to strip Arab Israelis of their citizenship if they marry Palestinians. For African Americans who were subjected to a hundred years of anti-miscegenation laws promulgated by the white supremacists that ruled in Dixie, it is an all too familiar story. [Webster’s dictionary defines miscegenation as “a mixture of races; especially
Utah cases challenge whether anti-polygamy laws are constitutional
Polygamy is the practice (usually religious) of having multiple spouses (usually wives). There are two possible lines of constitutional attack on anti-polygamy statutes. One derives from the First Amendment's religion clauses. The other derives from Due Process "right to privacy" concepts -- and in particular, from the Supreme Court's recent holding in Lawrence v. Texas that adults have a privacy right that extends to private, consensual sex acts. In the end, neither of these lines of attack will -- or should -- be successful. Still, it is worth taking a close look at each to examine the extent to which the
Oregon governor pushing for civil unions law
Gov. Ted Kulongoski says he will push for a civil unions bill in the 2005 Legislature to give gay and lesbian couples some of the rights bestowed on married couples. Kulongoski pledge to back a civil unions law expands on his announcement in January that he would support legislation extending anti-discrimination protections to gays and lesbians. The Democratic governor said today that he is working with a bipartisan group of senators on a bill that combines a proposed civil unions law with the anti-discrimination provisions. "As I stated in January, we face a great moral challenge to make sure opportunity
Clinton, Congress say okay to discrimination
On Sept. 10 in Hawaii, a court heard opening arguments in a case that has so shaken the anti-gay U.S. ruling class that in Washington the same day, the Senate held its first vote ever on gay rights. Actually, there were two votes. The bigots prevailed in both. By 85 to 14, the Senate joined the House in voting to deny federal recognition of same-sex marriage if Hawaii or another state grants that right. And by 50 to 49, the Senate killed a bill to ban anti-gay discrimination on the job. The ruling class is the real force behind the