SAME-SEX MARRIAGE (SSM) IN MASSACHUSETTS:

The court ruling: Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.
Civil unions as an alternative to marriage.

Sponsored link.

2003-NOV-18: Supreme Court delivers ruling:

The Supreme Judicial Court's of Massachusetts -- the state's supreme court -- finally handed down their long-awaited ruling. ₈ They determined that the state violated the state's constitution by refusing to marry the seven gay and lesbian couples who initiated their lawsuit. Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote the majority opinion. She wrote: "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." She referred to marriage as a "vital institution [which] nurtures love and mutual support [and] brings stability to society....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."  However, the court did not go so far as to order the state to issue marriage licenses immediately -- an action taken by the Ontario court. The court granted the state legislature 180 days to deal with the decision. Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) said that he had to respect the court ruling. He is reported as saying that he will have the legislature create a constitutional amendment which would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This path has been previously taken by the states of Hawaii and Alaska, after their state supreme courts had delivered similar rulings. Amending the Massachusetts constitution is a long process and could not be completed until at least 2006.

Reactions were as expected:

2003-DEC-11: Civil Union query:

Some Massachusetts legislators and constitutional experts "...have decided that the court really meant to guarantee same-sex couples the rights and benefits of civil marriage, and not civil marriage itself." ₂ If this is correct, then a the court ruling might be satisfied if the legislature were to create a system of civil unions which gave same-sex couples the same state rights as married couples. This would match the  situation in Vermont. Same-sex couples who entered civil unions would be granted the approximately 400 state benefits given to all married couples. However, they would not receive the approximately 1,050 federal benefits.

Senate President Robert Travaglini (D) told the Boston Globe that the NOV-19 ruling: "...is probably the most significant decision rendered by the Supreme Judicial Court in 50 years. And there is a significant difference of opinion among legal experts. We need clarification." He said that the legislators would breath a collective "sigh of relief" if the court agreed with civil unions as a substitute for actual marriage. He expressed the belief that the Senate would pass such a bill, but that passage in the House would be more difficult.

On 2003-DEC-11, the Massachusetts Senate voted to ask the state Supreme Judicial Court whether full civil unions would satisfy their 2003-NOV-18 ruling. ₃ "The court invited interested parties to weigh in on civil unions via written legal briefs. At least 10 groups filed briefs by Monday's deadline, [2004-JAN-12]. ₄

This essay continues below.

2004-FEB-2: Democratic leaders back marriage for all:

The leadership of the Massachusetts Democratic Party has backed a resolution supporting marriage for both opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

However, Representative Philip Travis, who introduced the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment, said that they are "...out of touch with the elected Democratic members of the House and the Senate of Massachusetts, and out of touch with the Democrats who are running for the presidency of the United States." ₅

2004-FEB-4: Court rules on constitutionality of civil unions:

As noted above, on 2003-DEC-11, the Massachusetts Senate voted to ask the state Supreme Judicial Court whether full civil unions would satisfy their 2003-NOV-18 ruling. ₃ They delivered their ruling on 2004-FEB-6. With the same close vote, 4 to 3, they stated that only full marriage rights for same-sex couples would conform to the state's constitutional. Civil unions for gays and lesbians would be unconstitutional. In an obvious reference to racial segregation, they wrote: "Because the proposed law by its express terms forbids same-sex couples entry into civil marriage, it continues to relegate same-sex couples to a different status....The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal." _6,7

References:

1. Tim Harper, "U.S. court lifts gay-marriage ban," The Toronto Star, 2003-NOV-19, Page A3.
2. "MFI E-alert," Massachusetts Family Institute, 2003-12-31.
3. Ann Rostow, "Mass. senate queries court on civil unions," PlanetOut News & Politics, 2003-DEC-11, at: http://www.planetout.com/
4. Eric Johnston, "Both sides of marriage fight watch court," PlanetOut News & Politics, 2004-JAN-13, at: http://www.planetout.com/
5. Stuart Shepard, "Massachusetts Democratic Leaders Back Gay 'Marriage'," Focus on the Family, 2004-FEB-2, at: http://family.org/
6. Jennifer Peter, "Mass. Court Clears Way for Gay Marriages," Associated Press, 2004-FEB-4, at: http://customwire.ap.org/
7. Rose Arce, "Massachusetts court upholds same-sex marriage," CNN Law Center, 2004-FEB-6, at: http://edition.cnn.com/
8. "Unofficial Synopsis Prepared by the Reporter of Decisions: Hillary GOODRIDGE & others [FN1] vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & another. [FN2] SJC-08860," The Massachusetts Court System, at: http://www.mass.gov/

Copyright © 2002 to 2004 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2002-APR-6
Latest update: 2004-OCT-27
Author: B.A. Robinson