The fact that the law doesn’t include heterosexuals escapes Campbell’s concern that “separate is never equal”: “A person is eligible to enter into a civil union if such person is … Of the same sex as the other party to the civil union.”
The FIC further notes that a reader calling himself “in the know” posted this comment following Campbell’s column: “It’s pretty well known that the SP’s on the Ct. Supreme Ct.-Katz, Palmer, Norcott have put together a majority opinion in favor of gay marriage.”
Thus far, only four judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court have been brazen enough to impose same-sex marriage on a state. Other liberal courts in New York, Washington, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island and Maryland have declined.
But anxiety abounds when marriage is in the hands of a court shameless enough to rule that “a fetus constitutes a part of the mother’s body and, therefore, is a member of her body,” akin to her “ear, tongue and skin.” State v. Sandoval (2003).
Lest anyone criticize their biological buffoonery, they actually said, “we interpret statutes to avoid bizarre or nonsensical results.” Thanks so much for clearing that up.
Still, I’m compelled to ask: If the fetus is like skin, does a woman go into labor or just exfoliate? When the baby kicks, does mom get a ringing in the ear? During the delivery, does the doc say “Stick out your fetus” as if it was a tongue?
Five members of the Sandoval court remain. We can only hope they have greater regard for the biological realities that permit only a man and a woman to unite in marriage.
May the Kerrigan court redeem itself by showing due deference to the Connecticut Constitution and “the Supreme Being, the Great Creator and Preserver of the Universe” it acknowledges.