Tuesday’s 4-3 ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, declaring that homosexual couples are legally entitled to wed, should provide an absolute bonanza for the Eulenspiegle Society’s national headquarters for sadomasochists in Manhattan’s Greenwich Village.
For Massachusetts’ Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, writing for the majority, ruled as follows:
“Barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. … Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial and social benefits. In return, it imposes weighty legal, financial and social obligations.
“The question before the court was whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth could deny those protections, benefits and obligations to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.
“The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals and forbids the creation of second-class citizens. …
“The marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on same-sex families for no rational reason.
“The right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one’s choice, subject to appropriate government restrictions in the interests of public health, safety and welfare.”
This ruling, forbidding any “second-class citizens” will surely allow sadomasochist marriages as well as sodomist ones.
Let us predict that the Very Rev. I.M. DeSade, a sadist, wishes to marry his masochist lover, Paynes Pleasure.
The ceremony is conducted by another S&M clergyman. He wears a cassock, surplice – and, in place of stole or tippet, he has a large chain around his neck. He carries a whip.
This first sadomasochist wedding includes the sadist groom using that whip to give the masochist bride two dozen lashes well laid on – as the male bride exudes cries of delight and the congregation cheers. The TV cameras record all.
The Eulenspiegle Society, before this ceremony, will have filed notice with this Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that they – as well as sodomists – are entitled to marry because:
“The marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on sadomasochist lovers for no rational reason.” And further: “The right to marry the person of one’s choice, subject to appropriate government restrictions in the interests of public health, safety and welfare, is extended to sodomists – the nation’s leading spreaders of AIDS – but not S&Mers, who have no record of AIDS-spreading – an inequity that is unconstitutional in Massachusetts.”
The sadomasochist wedding – approved by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court – leads to demands not only from sadomasochists, but from the pedophile pederasts of the Massachusetts-headquartered North American Man/Boy Love Association – as well as that bestiality website in Missouri: “Man’s Beast Friend.”
Welcome to New Morality in Massachusetts.
In New York, at the national headquarters of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, President William Donohue, an attorney, noted the following:
“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’ In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers. Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals – brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain – but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic. What it comes down to is this: If love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify. But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.
“Polygamists have every right to sue. After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people? Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying. In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out – Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry? But why not be inclusive? This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.
“If there is one saving grace in this ruling, it is the decision to force state legislators to do what they hate to do – make a decision about an issue they would prefer judges to make for them.”
Democrats’ seething hatred for America
Wayne Allyn Root