The following editorial appeared in the Detroit Free Press on Wednesday, Nov. 19:

States cannot decide to sanction marriage for some adults but not others. That’s common sense, and in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it’s now the law.

Though the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court split 4-3 on the issue of gay marriage, the language of its verdict Tuesday was unwavering: “Central to personal freedom and security is the assurance that the laws will apply equally to persons in similar situations.”

The court reaffirmed the bedrock constitutional principle that laws are for everyone, not just a select few. Whether couples are heterosexual or homosexual should not impact their ability to get the state’s stamp of legitimacy on

their committed union.

As a state decision, Tuesday’s ruling is likely to have little effect in Michigan, which, like the federal government, has a Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. But here and elsewhere, it will likely buoy the self-appointed guardians of marriage who seek constitutional bans against gay unions.

They argue that letting homosexuals wed undermines the institution. The divorce rate suggests heterosexuals have done a pretty poor job guarding it so far. Letting the gay couple on the corner marry will not hurt the bond between the heterosexual couple across the street.

Society’s bonds are strengthened by people’s commitments to each other. The court made a healthy decision – for civil rights, for human rights, and for the institution of marriage.

Copy the Story Link