feature:
Law student Michael Corliss thought he was just being a “law nerd” when he chose a passage from the landmark court decision that allowed same-sex marriage in Massachusetts to be read at his August wedding ceremony.
But it turned out that Corliss, a Milton native, and his bride, Amelia Neptune, both 28, were not alone.
Portions of the decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the 2003 Supreme Judicial Court ruling that made Massachusetts the first state to recognize gay marriages, have become common wedding readings among both same-sex and heterosexual couples in Massachusetts and beyond, several local wedding celebrants said. …
“Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family,” a key passage reads. “Because it fulfills yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.”
January 10th, 2013 | 12:18 pm
I don’t know exactly what it would be, but I get the feeling C.S. Lewis would have had something trenchant to say about people who seek to express meaning in their deepest relationships via civil law books. It has echoes of trying to warm yourself with a copybook.
January 10th, 2013 | 2:27 pm
This reafirms a common expression of mine calling leftist jurisprudence “secular scripture”..
They dont have thousands of years of history, tradition and sacred text and rituals.
So they end up reading from a legal opinion at their wedding.
January 12th, 2013 | 12:23 am
The pro-SSM Goodrige opinion reads like a political speech and exemplifies the abuse of judicial review whereby the judge’s policy preference is declared in spite of the unambiguous and legitimate meaning of the law.
That is what the quotation celebrates. If this is the celebrated landmark that has SSMers nodding and smiling knowingly to each other, then, this demonstrates how the SSM campaign has taught a corruptive view of governance.
The court’s opinion is flat out wrrong. Wrong in outcome but, first and foremost, wrong in its proferred reasoning. There can be excuse for it.
January 12th, 2013 | 12:25 am
Typo correction: There can be no excuse for it.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact