We're Witnessing the Worst Foolishness since the Emperor Wore No Clothes
By Atty. J. Edward Pawlick,
Is masturbation a Constitutional right in Massachusetts if the women in the case are masturbating each other in private?
That, in a nutshell, is the legal issue that Chief Justice Margaret Marshall had her six judges debating for nine months last year, while the world waited in intense anticipation and other business was shoved aside.
Most agree that the women in the Goodridge case have a right to do whatever they wish while they are in private, but that is not the question Judge Marshall was given to decide. The question is whether their masturbation requires the government to issue them a license to “marry.”
More important How about if the women are not masturbating each other even though they live in the same home? Can the government deny them a marriage license until they start masturbating? (No one has asked Margaret that question yet.)
Even more important How will the two women prove to Marshall that they are masturbating, and therefore qualify for the benefits of marriage? This must occur before any marriage license is issued to the plaintiffs in the Goodridge case. And what will Marshall do in future cases if the “family” is three or four masturbating women?
The question becomes a little more complex when we consider male homosexuals because they not only do mutual masturbation, they also insert their penis into each other's rectum, which causes severe rectal damage, often leading to an early death. Do they have a constitutional right to marry in Massachusetts?
These are the pressing questions our lawyers are deciding because they, the lawyers, have concluded that the citizens of Massachusetts are too bigoted to decide “civil rights issues.” Therefore, they believe, the lawyers must write a new Constitution for the state and not allow the Legislature to settle these issues as the three dissenting judges argue with vehemence.
If Margaret Marshall's ruling on marriage, which can easily be changed by the same or new judges, is allowed to become effective on May 17, any two people will be able to marry in Massachusetts ? and obtain all the benefits thereof.
That is true because the Commonwealth has never asked a straight couple whether they have had sex together before they apply for a license. The law has always assumed that a couple has not had sex. Therefore, every woman/woman couple and every man/man will also have to be granted a license whether or not they have ever had sex together or whether they plan to do so.
After all, no one goes to find a straight couple and asks if they're having sex after they've received their license.
Therefore, Judge Marshall can not order that women who masturbate be allowed to marry unless she provides a mechanism for ensuring that they are masturbating.
The other solution is to allow any two people to marry. Therefore, two women in their sixties, who don't even live together, will be able to get “married” and receive all the benefits thereof..
Or a couple of college boys could get “married” and receive the benefits thereof or they could do it as a lark. When one boy finds the girl he wants to marry, he can get a divorce from the other boy.
All these questions could be a bonanza for the 80,000 lawyers of the state. We would even hear radio ads from the same-sex lawyer telling consumers he can guarantee benefits for them. We could even establish a new court and call it the “Same Sex Marriage Court.” We could name the new courthouse, the Marshall Memorial for unemployed lawyers.