It may become the wedding bell heard around the world.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4-3 Nov. 18 that same- and opposite-sex couples must be given equal civil marriage rights under the state constitution.
The ruling in Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health makes the state the first in the nation to grant same-sex couples the right to a civil marriage license. Ruling that civil marriage in Massachusetts means 'the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others,' the Court allowed the Legislature 180 days to change the civil marriage statutes accordingly.
But a similar decision happened in Vermont in 1999—and that state's politicians came up with a civil-unions compromise just short of gay marriage.
The Massachusetts legislature already is considering a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Only time will tell what 'compromise' the Massachusetts politicians will find to satisfy the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling.
Only Canada, Belgium and The Netherlands allow gays and lesbians the full right to marry.
'Today, the Massachusetts Supreme Court made history. In the best tradition of our nation, that court ruled that the hard-working, tax-paying gay and lesbian citizens deserve the same rights and protections under law as other citizens of that state,' said Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign. 'This ruling [will] never interfere with the right of religious institutions—churches, synagogues and mosques—to determine who will be married within the context of their respective religious faiths. This is about whether gay and lesbian couples in long-term, committed relationships will be afforded the benefits, rights and protections afforded other citizens to best care for their partners and children. This is good for gay couples and it is good for America.
'A civil marriage license unlocks the door to hundreds of rights, responsibilities and protections under state law,' added Birch. 'This ruling simply means that devoted couples in Massachusetts will no longer have to worry about being denied the ability to visit each other in the hospital, or the ability to make medical decisions for their beloved.'
'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,' wrote Chief Justice Margaret Marshall. '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.'
'This is a historic day for lesbian and gay couples in Massachusetts who until today have only dreamed of being able to get married,' said David Buckel, Lambda Legal's Marriage Project Director.
Results from the ruling, according to HRC:
— Same-sex couples who choose to obtain a civil marriage license will now be able to:
* Visit each other in the hospital;
* Make important healthcare and financial decisions for each other;
* Have mutual obligations to provide support for each other;
* File joint state tax returns, and have the burden and advantages of the state tax law;
* Receive hundreds of other protections.
— Churches and other religious institutions will not have to recognize or perform these ceremonies. This ruling is not about religion; it's about the civil responsibilities and protections afforded through a government-issued civil marriage license.
— All married couples should be extended the more than 1,000 federal protections and responsibilities administered at the federal level.
— States and businesses may legally recognize the civil marriages of same-sex couples performed in Massachusetts the same way they treat those of opposite-sex couples.
The Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) brought the case on behalf of seven gay and lesbian couples after they were denied civil marriage certificates solely because they were same-sex couples. Four of the couples are raising children together and all have been together for more than six years. 'GLAD and Mary Bonato, its leading lawyer, did an outstanding job arguing this case with professionalism and passion,' said Birch.
During oral arguments in the case, GLAD contended that the right to choose whom a person marries is a fundamental right protected by the Massachusetts Constitution. The group argued that the emotional bonds for same- and opposite-sex couples are identical and so should be the legal benefits that come from civil marriage. GLAD also argued that the stated governmental interests put forth to justify the denial of civil marriage to same-sex couples were unfounded and could not be used as a bar to such an essential right, HRC reported.
HRC signed onto a 'friend of the court' brief to support and further explain the case for extending marriage rights to same-sex couples under the state constitution. A variety of other organizations, religious groups, child welfare experts, family and legal historians and others also signed or filed briefs.
Domestic partner laws in California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii and Connecticut also allow same-sex couples access to some of the basic benefits and protections afforded to married heterosexual couples. More than 50 cities and counties nationwide [including Cook County in Illinois, and suburban Oak Park] offer domestic-partner registries where same-sex and sometimes opposite-sex couples can register their relationships. Some of these registries provide same-sex couples with important legal protections, such as the right to visit each other in the hospital, while others simply recognize the relationship without conveying any benefits.
'We are elated that the State Supreme Court of Massachusetts has chosen to rule for fairness and equality for all its citizens,' said Aimee Gelnaw, executive director of the Family Pride Coalition. 'Too many American families have been left at risk because they have been denied the legal protections that come with civil marriage. It is clear that states can no longer accept legal systems that deny basic protections to gay and lesbian couples and their children. Now it's up to the state legislature to ensure that gay and lesbian couples in Massachusetts no longer have to live under such oppression.'
'Marriages between gay and lesbian couples have existed throughout American history,' said Dave Noble, executive director of the Stonewall Democrats. 'What has changed today in Massachusetts is that these families no longer have to live in the shadow of legal discrimination. While we celebrate the advance of justice, we are also preparing our families for an onslaught of attacks by right-wing activists. This ruling is the beginning, not end, of our struggle for all marriages to be treated equally.'
'Although I am opposed to gay marriage, I have also long believed that states have the right to adopt for themselves laws that allow same-sex unions. I will oppose any attempts by the right wing to change the Constitution in response to today's ruling, which would be unnecessary and divisive,' said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who is running for president.
State courts in Hawaii, Alaska and Vermont have made similar rulings, but politicians in those states have found ways around the decisions. Vermont is the only state to allow civil unions, which still stop short of the full benefits of marriage. Howard Dean, when he was Vermont governor, signed the bill into law. He is now a presidential contender.
Lambda Legal's lawsuit on behalf of seven New Jersey couples seeking full marriage rights is moving forward on a faster track on appeal in state court. Both sides in the case always expected it to be resolved at the state Supreme Court, where it's now headed.
The Massachusetts case cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This story broke as WCT went to press. Come back for updates.
