High Court in Massachusetts Rules Gays Have Right to Marry
Finally, someone cares about human rights. YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
November 18, 2003
By TERENCE NEILAN
The highest court in Massachusetts ruled today that gay and lesbian couples have the right to marry under the state constitution, emphatically stating that the Commonwealth had failed to identify any constitutional reasons why they could not wed.
The ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court stopped short of immediately allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the seven gay couples who sued the state Department of Public Health in 2001 after their requests for marriage licenses were denied.
But the court gave the Legislature six months to comply with its decision.
Gay advocacy groups and some Massachusetts legal organizations praised the decision, while opponents of same-sex marriage denounced the ruling, with some asserting that it underscored why the United States Constitution needed to be amended to define marriage.
Some state officials, including Gov. Mitt Romney, called for amending the Massachusetts constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
While today's ruling fell somewhat short of what the plaintiffs were seeking, it appeared nevertheless to be a victory for gay rights advocates, given the forceful language of the opinion.
"We are mindful that our decision marks a change in the history of the marriage law," the court said in its 4-to-3 opinion, written by Chief Justice Margaret Marshall.
"Marriage is a vital social institution," Chief Justice Marshall wrote. "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."
She added: "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.
"We conclude that it may not."
The state's Attorney General's office, which defended the Department of Public Health, argued that neither state law nor its constitution created a right to same-sex marriage. The state also said any decision to extend marriage to same-sex partners should be made by elected lawmakers, not the courts.
The Massachusetts assembly is considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. That proposal has been endorsed by the Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran of Boston, but other factions within the Legislature support either gay marriage or civil unions between people of the same sex.
Governor Romney explained his support for such an amendment, saying, "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."
Martin W. Healy, general counsel to the Massachusetts Bar Association, said that even though "the assembly or citizens of Massachusetts could by referendum change the state constitution," such a move would be "a multiyear proposition."
Under the state constitution, the earliest any such amendment could be voted on would be November 2006, Mr. Healy said.
In the interim, some legal analysts said, gay couples would be granted marriage licenses.
The Supreme Judicial Court's decision was welcomed by the Boston Bar Association as well as the Massachusetts Bar Association.
"Today's decision by the S.J.C. represents a landmark civil rights victory, saying that a pervasive and intolerable source of discrimination against gay people clearly violates our state constitution," said Renée M. Landers, president of the Boston Bar Association.
Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to marriage equality for same-sex couples, said it was "a wonderful day for the families who will now be able to take on the protections and the responsibilities of civil marriage, and for the country, because will see that families are helped and no one is hurt when gay couples are allowed to marry."
But the decision drew fire from conservative groups, including the Family Research Council. "While we are certainly relieved that the court stopped short of granting marriage licenses to the homosexual couples demanding them, 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," the council's president, Tony Perkins, said in a statement.
The Massachusetts ruling is sure to reverberate politically well beyond that state's borders. With the presidential campaign well under way, and the crucial New Hampshire primary in late January, White House aspirants will be under increasing pressure to make their views on gay marriage clear. Even before today's decision, opponents of same-sex marriages proposed an amendment to the United States Constitution that would restrict marriage and its benefits to two people of the opposite sex.
President Bush, who is on a state visit to Britain, criticized the Massachusetts decision, declaring that "marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman."
"I will work with Congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage," Mr. Bush said in a statement.
Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican majority leader, predicted that Congress would address the implications of the Massachusetts ruling and how it relates to a 1996 federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between man and woman and bars gay couples from enjoying many federal rights, like Social Security benefits paid to a surviving partner.
"It is the law of the land passed by this body, and if the courts begin to tear that down, we have a responsibility to address it," Mr. Frist told reporters.
"And all options are indeed on the table," he added, in an apparent reference to the proposed amendment to the United States Constitution.
Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic minority leader, said he disagreed with the Massachusetts decision. "I believe that the Defense of Marriage Act that we passed in Congress is constitutional," he said.
Mr. Daschle said he expected the court decision to become political grist. "But I believe that the issue is as clear as can be," he said. "We passed the Defense of Marriage Act by an overwhelming margin on a bipartisan basis. The law still stands today, and I think it would under any court scrutiny."
A ruling in 1999 by the Vermont Supreme Court, later passed by the state Legislature, approved the creation of civil unions that give gay couples in that state many of the same benefits of marriage. Courts in Hawaii and Alaska also ruled that the states did not have a right to deny marriage to gay couples, but the decisions were followed by the adoption of constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
In Canada, gay marriage is legal in Ontario and British Columbia, and the government is pushing to legalize it across the country.
The plaintiffs in the Massachusetts lawsuit included Dr. Perry Norton, a retired physician from Jamaica Plain, Mass., his daughter, Heidi, and her partner, Gina. The two women were united in a Unitarian religious service in 1993. They live in Northampton, Mass., with their two sons, Avery, who will be 7 on Wednesday, and Quinn, 3.
"We're glad for this decision," Dr. Norton said, "but we wish it was unanimous, and we wish the court could say since it's unconstitutional to deny marriage to same-sex couples they could go out and get marriage licenses today."
November 18, 2003
By TERENCE NEILAN
The highest court in Massachusetts ruled today that gay and lesbian couples have the right to marry under the state constitution, emphatically stating that the Commonwealth had failed to identify any constitutional reasons why they could not wed.
The ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court stopped short of immediately allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the seven gay couples who sued the state Department of Public Health in 2001 after their requests for marriage licenses were denied.
But the court gave the Legislature six months to comply with its decision.
Gay advocacy groups and some Massachusetts legal organizations praised the decision, while opponents of same-sex marriage denounced the ruling, with some asserting that it underscored why the United States Constitution needed to be amended to define marriage.
Some state officials, including Gov. Mitt Romney, called for amending the Massachusetts constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
While today's ruling fell somewhat short of what the plaintiffs were seeking, it appeared nevertheless to be a victory for gay rights advocates, given the forceful language of the opinion.
"We are mindful that our decision marks a change in the history of the marriage law," the court said in its 4-to-3 opinion, written by Chief Justice Margaret Marshall.
"Marriage is a vital social institution," Chief Justice Marshall wrote. "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."
She added: "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.
"We conclude that it may not."
The state's Attorney General's office, which defended the Department of Public Health, argued that neither state law nor its constitution created a right to same-sex marriage. The state also said any decision to extend marriage to same-sex partners should be made by elected lawmakers, not the courts.
The Massachusetts assembly is considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. That proposal has been endorsed by the Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran of Boston, but other factions within the Legislature support either gay marriage or civil unions between people of the same sex.
Governor Romney explained his support for such an amendment, saying, "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."
Martin W. Healy, general counsel to the Massachusetts Bar Association, said that even though "the assembly or citizens of Massachusetts could by referendum change the state constitution," such a move would be "a multiyear proposition."
Under the state constitution, the earliest any such amendment could be voted on would be November 2006, Mr. Healy said.
In the interim, some legal analysts said, gay couples would be granted marriage licenses.
The Supreme Judicial Court's decision was welcomed by the Boston Bar Association as well as the Massachusetts Bar Association.
"Today's decision by the S.J.C. represents a landmark civil rights victory, saying that a pervasive and intolerable source of discrimination against gay people clearly violates our state constitution," said Renée M. Landers, president of the Boston Bar Association.
Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to marriage equality for same-sex couples, said it was "a wonderful day for the families who will now be able to take on the protections and the responsibilities of civil marriage, and for the country, because will see that families are helped and no one is hurt when gay couples are allowed to marry."
But the decision drew fire from conservative groups, including the Family Research Council. "While we are certainly relieved that the court stopped short of granting marriage licenses to the homosexual couples demanding them, 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," the council's president, Tony Perkins, said in a statement.
The Massachusetts ruling is sure to reverberate politically well beyond that state's borders. With the presidential campaign well under way, and the crucial New Hampshire primary in late January, White House aspirants will be under increasing pressure to make their views on gay marriage clear. Even before today's decision, opponents of same-sex marriages proposed an amendment to the United States Constitution that would restrict marriage and its benefits to two people of the opposite sex.
President Bush, who is on a state visit to Britain, criticized the Massachusetts decision, declaring that "marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman."
"I will work with Congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage," Mr. Bush said in a statement.
Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican majority leader, predicted that Congress would address the implications of the Massachusetts ruling and how it relates to a 1996 federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between man and woman and bars gay couples from enjoying many federal rights, like Social Security benefits paid to a surviving partner.
"It is the law of the land passed by this body, and if the courts begin to tear that down, we have a responsibility to address it," Mr. Frist told reporters.
"And all options are indeed on the table," he added, in an apparent reference to the proposed amendment to the United States Constitution.
Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic minority leader, said he disagreed with the Massachusetts decision. "I believe that the Defense of Marriage Act that we passed in Congress is constitutional," he said.
Mr. Daschle said he expected the court decision to become political grist. "But I believe that the issue is as clear as can be," he said. "We passed the Defense of Marriage Act by an overwhelming margin on a bipartisan basis. The law still stands today, and I think it would under any court scrutiny."
A ruling in 1999 by the Vermont Supreme Court, later passed by the state Legislature, approved the creation of civil unions that give gay couples in that state many of the same benefits of marriage. Courts in Hawaii and Alaska also ruled that the states did not have a right to deny marriage to gay couples, but the decisions were followed by the adoption of constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
In Canada, gay marriage is legal in Ontario and British Columbia, and the government is pushing to legalize it across the country.
The plaintiffs in the Massachusetts lawsuit included Dr. Perry Norton, a retired physician from Jamaica Plain, Mass., his daughter, Heidi, and her partner, Gina. The two women were united in a Unitarian religious service in 1993. They live in Northampton, Mass., with their two sons, Avery, who will be 7 on Wednesday, and Quinn, 3.
"We're glad for this decision," Dr. Norton said, "but we wish it was unanimous, and we wish the court could say since it's unconstitutional to deny marriage to same-sex couples they could go out and get marriage licenses today."