In recent days WBSM listeners have, again, been exposed to a number of falsehoods and historical manglings that obscure the facts of the gay marriage debate. The keystone assertion has been that "The Supreme Judicial Court upheld slavery which was only then defeated by the opposition of the people."
The line is aimed to undercut the argument that the SJC is a worthy arbiter of civil rights. The SJC has, gay marriage advocates claim, defended the fundamental civil rights of same sex couples. However, the SJC is hardly a final arbiter of civil rights if it is that very court which upheld slavery - an odious institution allegedly toppled by the "will of the people."
The trouble with this assertion is, firstly, that it is a barefaced lie and second that the announcer quickly adds that numerous courts in many states have rejected the gay marriage rights argument. It is curious indeed that you would claim a court cannot best determine civil rights and then claim that, anyway, so many other courts have already determined the viability of the rights in question.
Perhaps it is best to console ourselves with some truth from elementary level social studies : A constitution guarantees fundamental rights for all and limits the power of the government. The judiciary interprets the constitution and is the final arbiter of fundamental rights. It is recognized that judicial support for slavery ( especially the Dred Scott decision) erroneously judged the property rights of one group of individuals as more valuable than the civil rights of others – a failing common to 19th C judicial decisions. This failing was not overly common in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court which ruled in Roberts vs. The City of Boston (1849) that :
Slavery was abolished in Massachusetts, by virtue of the declaration of rights in our constitution, without any specific words of abolition in that instrument, or in any subsequent legislation.
Clearly, then, the true legacy of slavery in Massachusetts is that the SJC has the track record and the remit to exclusively decide what the rights of Mass. residents are or are not. I guess that local rep. hit the nail squarely on the head after all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Response to Pittman:
Essentially, the Rep. answers a question about the Mass. SJC decision and says that the Mass. Legislature should not put the civil rights of Mass. residents on the Mass. ballot and you respond that the SJC upheld slavery, giving no clue that you were refering to another judicial entity that judges the merits of another constitution entirely. OK.
Let’s pretend that you were erroneously calling the US Supreme Court the US SJC ( an entity that does not exist): you would apparently still be aware that the Mass. SJC abolished slavery and, as I said, is well placed to judge the civil rights of Mass residents.
Post a Comment