- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
November 19, 2003
Marriage by Gays Gains Big Victory in Massachusetts
By PAM BELLUCK
BOSTON, Nov. 18 — Massachusetts'' highest court ruled on Tuesday that gay couples have the right to marry under the state''s Constitution, and it gave the state legislature 180 days to make same-sex marriages possible.
The 4-to-3 decision was the first in which a state high court had ruled homosexual couples are constitutionally entitled to marry, and legal experts predicted it would have ramifications across the country.
"The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry," wrote Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall of the state''s Supreme Judicial Court. "We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens."
The decision, which did not explicitly tell the state legislature how to carry out the ruling, sent lawmakers and legal experts scrambling to determine what options exist short of legitimizing gay marriage. Other experts said that the court appeared determined to extend full marriage rights to gay men and lesbians.
The decision ignited a storm of reaction throughout the nation, with gay groups and some liberals heralding the ruling, and conservatives and some religious groups denouncing it.
"We''re thrilled and delighted the highest court in the state of Massachusetts confirms that our community has the right to enter into civil marriage the same as other couples," said David Tseng, the executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, who noted that three of the four justices in the majority were appointed by Republican governors. "This is a tremendous victory for fairness and for families."
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative group, said "it is inexcusable for this court to force the state legislature to `fix'' its state constitution to make it comport with the pro-homosexual agenda of four court justices."
Mr. Perkins and other conservatives said the decision underscored the need for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
"We must amend the Constitution if we are to stop a tyrannical judiciary from redefining marriage to the point of extinction," he said.
It also seemed likely that the court ruling would catapult same-sex marriage into a major issue in the presidential campaign. Virtually every Democratic presidential candidate issued a statement on Tuesday that tried to find a middle ground on an issue that is nothing if not polarizing. Most did not express support for gay marriage or a constitutional amendment banning it, but said they supported giving gay couples the benefits heterosexual couples receive.
President Bush, who has opposed same-sex marriage but not embraced the idea of a constitutional amendment, said in a statement: "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today''s decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with Congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
In defending the current practice of restricting marriages to heterosexual couples, Massachusetts officials had argued that the main purpose of marriage was procreation, that heterosexual marriage was best for child-rearing, and that gay marriage would impose a financial burden on the state. But Justice Marshall dismissed those arguments, saying that the state "has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples."
Some legal experts said they thought the ruling might allow room for Massachusetts to embrace a parallel system like the civil unions allowed by Vermont. Other experts said the 34-page ruling left little doubt that the court intended that full-fledged marriage be extended to gays and lesbians. Robert E. Travaglini, president of the State Senate, who has said he supports civil unions but not same-sex marriage, said on Tuesday that "the strength of the language and the depth of the decision" makes it clear that marriage, and not civil unions, "is the wish of the court."
Because it is based in state law, the ruling cannot be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. And it cannot be overturned by the legislature. But the legislature could try to amend the state Constitution to ban gay marriage, an option that Gov. Mitt Romney said on Tuesday that he favored. Such a process, though, would take at least three years.
Polls show that many Americans, while more tolerant of homosexual relationships, still do not support homosexual marriage. And some experts predicted that the court decision would increase support for laws banning gay marriage in states and at a national level. Already, 37 states have passed measures defining marriage as between men and women.
"This comes pretty close to an earthquake politically," said Alan Wolfe, a professor of political science at Boston College. "I think it''s exactly the right kind of material for a backlash."
The decision was a personal victory for at least 14 people: the gay and lesbian partners who were plaintiffs in the court case. The seven couples from across the state, most of whom had lived together for years and some of whom are raising children, all sought marriage licenses in 2001 from their town or city offices.
A lower-court judge dismissed the case in May 2002 before it went to trial, ruling that because same-sex couples cannot have children, the state does not give them the right to marry.
"Without a doubt this is the happiest day of our lives," said one plaintiff, Gloria Bailey, 62, of Cape Cod, as she stood, teary-eyed, at a news conference with her partner of 32 years, Linda Davies, 67. "We''ve been wanting to get married practically since the day we met. We didn''t know if it would happen in our lifetime. We''re planning a spring wedding."
Several of the couples told stories of being denied access to their partners when they were hospitalized.
Hillary Goodridge, 46, of Boston, had to say she was the sister of her partner, Julie Goodridge, 45, to see Julie when she was rushed to the neonatal intensive care unit after giving birth to their daughter, Annie.
David Wilson, 58, was not able to say he was the brother of his partner, Robert Compton, 53, because Mr. Wilson is black and Mr. Compton, who has been hospitalized five times in the last five years, is white.
"We never have to worry about going to the hospital and negotiating our way through hospital teams because now we have the opportunity to protect ourselves through marriage," said Mr. Wilson, smiling at Mr. Compton.
Being legally married in Massachusetts would entitle same-sex couples to numerous other rights and benefits, including those related to property ownership, insurance, tax consquences and child custody. The marriage would not automatically be considered valid by the federal government or other states, which would probably have to decide on their own whether to recognize a Massachusetts gay marriage.
In the ruling, Justice Marshall wrote about the benefits of marriage for children and said that not being allowed to marry "works a deep and scarring hardship" on homosexual families.
"It cannot be rational under our laws, and indeed it is not permitted, to penalize children by depriving them of state benefits because the state disapproves of their parents'' sexual orientation," she wrote.
In the dissent, Justice Robert Cordy wrote that the marriage law was intended to apply to a man and a woman, and "it furthers the legitimate state purpose of ensuring, promoting and supporting an optimal social structure for the bearing and raising of children."
As it considers how to respond to the ruling in the next 180 days, the legislature will most likely consider several options. Already, in recent months, three different efforts have begun in the legislature: a drive to amend the state Constitution to ban gay marriage, a bill to establish civil unions and a bill that would allow for same-sex marriage.
The politics of Massachusetts make the issue especially tricky. The legislature is majority Democratic, but also largely Catholic, and the Roman Catholic Church is strenuously opposed to gay marriage. On the other hand, the Democrats are rarely aligned with Governor Romney, a Republican, who indicated on Tuesday that he would support some effort to extend benefits and rights to gay couples, though he would not support marriage.
"Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman," he said. "I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that makes that expressly clear. Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman."
Arthur Miller, a Harvard law professor, said he thought that given the closeness of the court decision, there might be room for the legislature "to create a relationship that might not necessarily be called marriage but allows for the recognition of property passage and joint ownership and insurance and even child custody."
But Elizabeth Bartholet, a family law expert at Harvard Law School, said the extensive discussion of marriage in the decision made it unlikely the court would allow civil unions.
If the legislature did nothing or failed to comply, Professor Bartholet said, "I would assume after 180 days the Supreme Judicial Court would say this is law and the state would have to issue marriage licenses."
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top
Marriage by Gays Gains Big Victory in Massachusetts
By PAM BELLUCK
BOSTON, Nov. 18 — Massachusetts'' highest court ruled on Tuesday that gay couples have the right to marry under the state''s Constitution, and it gave the state legislature 180 days to make same-sex marriages possible.
The 4-to-3 decision was the first in which a state high court had ruled homosexual couples are constitutionally entitled to marry, and legal experts predicted it would have ramifications across the country.
"The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry," wrote Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall of the state''s Supreme Judicial Court. "We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens."
The decision, which did not explicitly tell the state legislature how to carry out the ruling, sent lawmakers and legal experts scrambling to determine what options exist short of legitimizing gay marriage. Other experts said that the court appeared determined to extend full marriage rights to gay men and lesbians.
The decision ignited a storm of reaction throughout the nation, with gay groups and some liberals heralding the ruling, and conservatives and some religious groups denouncing it.
"We''re thrilled and delighted the highest court in the state of Massachusetts confirms that our community has the right to enter into civil marriage the same as other couples," said David Tseng, the executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, who noted that three of the four justices in the majority were appointed by Republican governors. "This is a tremendous victory for fairness and for families."
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative group, said "it is inexcusable for this court to force the state legislature to `fix'' its state constitution to make it comport with the pro-homosexual agenda of four court justices."
Mr. Perkins and other conservatives said the decision underscored the need for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
"We must amend the Constitution if we are to stop a tyrannical judiciary from redefining marriage to the point of extinction," he said.
It also seemed likely that the court ruling would catapult same-sex marriage into a major issue in the presidential campaign. Virtually every Democratic presidential candidate issued a statement on Tuesday that tried to find a middle ground on an issue that is nothing if not polarizing. Most did not express support for gay marriage or a constitutional amendment banning it, but said they supported giving gay couples the benefits heterosexual couples receive.
President Bush, who has opposed same-sex marriage but not embraced the idea of a constitutional amendment, said in a statement: "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today''s decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with Congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
In defending the current practice of restricting marriages to heterosexual couples, Massachusetts officials had argued that the main purpose of marriage was procreation, that heterosexual marriage was best for child-rearing, and that gay marriage would impose a financial burden on the state. But Justice Marshall dismissed those arguments, saying that the state "has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples."
Some legal experts said they thought the ruling might allow room for Massachusetts to embrace a parallel system like the civil unions allowed by Vermont. Other experts said the 34-page ruling left little doubt that the court intended that full-fledged marriage be extended to gays and lesbians. Robert E. Travaglini, president of the State Senate, who has said he supports civil unions but not same-sex marriage, said on Tuesday that "the strength of the language and the depth of the decision" makes it clear that marriage, and not civil unions, "is the wish of the court."
Because it is based in state law, the ruling cannot be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. And it cannot be overturned by the legislature. But the legislature could try to amend the state Constitution to ban gay marriage, an option that Gov. Mitt Romney said on Tuesday that he favored. Such a process, though, would take at least three years.
Polls show that many Americans, while more tolerant of homosexual relationships, still do not support homosexual marriage. And some experts predicted that the court decision would increase support for laws banning gay marriage in states and at a national level. Already, 37 states have passed measures defining marriage as between men and women.
"This comes pretty close to an earthquake politically," said Alan Wolfe, a professor of political science at Boston College. "I think it''s exactly the right kind of material for a backlash."
The decision was a personal victory for at least 14 people: the gay and lesbian partners who were plaintiffs in the court case. The seven couples from across the state, most of whom had lived together for years and some of whom are raising children, all sought marriage licenses in 2001 from their town or city offices.
A lower-court judge dismissed the case in May 2002 before it went to trial, ruling that because same-sex couples cannot have children, the state does not give them the right to marry.
"Without a doubt this is the happiest day of our lives," said one plaintiff, Gloria Bailey, 62, of Cape Cod, as she stood, teary-eyed, at a news conference with her partner of 32 years, Linda Davies, 67. "We''ve been wanting to get married practically since the day we met. We didn''t know if it would happen in our lifetime. We''re planning a spring wedding."
Several of the couples told stories of being denied access to their partners when they were hospitalized.
Hillary Goodridge, 46, of Boston, had to say she was the sister of her partner, Julie Goodridge, 45, to see Julie when she was rushed to the neonatal intensive care unit after giving birth to their daughter, Annie.
David Wilson, 58, was not able to say he was the brother of his partner, Robert Compton, 53, because Mr. Wilson is black and Mr. Compton, who has been hospitalized five times in the last five years, is white.
"We never have to worry about going to the hospital and negotiating our way through hospital teams because now we have the opportunity to protect ourselves through marriage," said Mr. Wilson, smiling at Mr. Compton.
Being legally married in Massachusetts would entitle same-sex couples to numerous other rights and benefits, including those related to property ownership, insurance, tax consquences and child custody. The marriage would not automatically be considered valid by the federal government or other states, which would probably have to decide on their own whether to recognize a Massachusetts gay marriage.
In the ruling, Justice Marshall wrote about the benefits of marriage for children and said that not being allowed to marry "works a deep and scarring hardship" on homosexual families.
"It cannot be rational under our laws, and indeed it is not permitted, to penalize children by depriving them of state benefits because the state disapproves of their parents'' sexual orientation," she wrote.
In the dissent, Justice Robert Cordy wrote that the marriage law was intended to apply to a man and a woman, and "it furthers the legitimate state purpose of ensuring, promoting and supporting an optimal social structure for the bearing and raising of children."
As it considers how to respond to the ruling in the next 180 days, the legislature will most likely consider several options. Already, in recent months, three different efforts have begun in the legislature: a drive to amend the state Constitution to ban gay marriage, a bill to establish civil unions and a bill that would allow for same-sex marriage.
The politics of Massachusetts make the issue especially tricky. The legislature is majority Democratic, but also largely Catholic, and the Roman Catholic Church is strenuously opposed to gay marriage. On the other hand, the Democrats are rarely aligned with Governor Romney, a Republican, who indicated on Tuesday that he would support some effort to extend benefits and rights to gay couples, though he would not support marriage.
"Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman," he said. "I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that makes that expressly clear. Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman."
Arthur Miller, a Harvard law professor, said he thought that given the closeness of the court decision, there might be room for the legislature "to create a relationship that might not necessarily be called marriage but allows for the recognition of property passage and joint ownership and insurance and even child custody."
But Elizabeth Bartholet, a family law expert at Harvard Law School, said the extensive discussion of marriage in the decision made it unlikely the court would allow civil unions.
If the legislature did nothing or failed to comply, Professor Bartholet said, "I would assume after 180 days the Supreme Judicial Court would say this is law and the state would have to issue marriage licenses."
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top
.
300x240.png)