BOSTON, November 21, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A puzzling feature of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision in favour of homosexual ‘marriage’ is the fact that the decision cites the Ontario Court decision in favour of same-sex ‘marriage’ but fails to cite the two recent court decisions on homosexual marriage from Arizona and New Jersey. The majority decision in the Massachusetts ruling states, “We face a problem similar to one that recently confronted the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the highest court of that Canadian province, when it considered the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage ban under Canada’s Federal Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms . . . In holding that the limitation of civil marriage to opposite- sex couples violated the Charter, the Court of Appeal refined the common-law meaning of marriage. We concur with this remedy, which is entirely consonant with established principles of jurisprudence empowering a court to refine a common-law principle in light of evolving constitutional standards.” However, the Massachusetts court failed to quote from the two state decisions which rejected homosexual ‘marriage’ even though those decisions were U.S. decisions as opposed to foreign decisions. Earlier this month the New Jersey Superior Court Justice Linda Feinberg ruled in favour of the New Jersey government, which was defending traditional marriage, against a legal assault by homosexual activists. In a 71-page decision, Feinberg stressed more than anything else that it is the legislature and not the courts which must decide the issue. Last month, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued a similar ruling which recognized the serious implications of inventing a constitutional right to same-sex “marriage”: “Recognizing a right to marry someone of the same sex would not expand the established right to marry, but would redefine the legal meaning of ‘marriage,’” the court said. The trend to cite international decisions to decide U.S. cases is growing. In August, Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg admitted that the Supreme Court decision rejecting the Texas sodomy law consulted international law in coming to its decision. “Our island or lone ranger mentality is beginning to change,” Ginsburg said during a speech to the American Constitution Society, a liberal lawyers group holding its first convention. Justices “are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives,” said Ginsburg. See the Massachusetts ruling online at: http://www.state.ma.us/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/goodridge.html See related LifeSite coverage: New Jersey Court Issues Second U.S. Ruling against Homosexual ‘Marriage’ http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/nov/03110604.html Arizona Court Rejects ‘Gay Marriage’ http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/oct/03100803.html