Boston, Massachusetts -
Massachusetts' highest court Tuesday ruled gay marriage is legal, but, the Supreme Judicial Court stopped short of ordering marriage licenses to be granted immediately to same-sex couples.
"We declare that 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," the ruling declared.
"The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples."
In a 4-3 ruling the court ordered the state Legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days. If there is no solution, the ruling says, licenses must be granted to same-sex couples.
The decision makes Massachusetts the only state in the union to recognize marriage between same-sex couples.
The case was brought by seven same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses.
The group was represented by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders which argued that denying the licenses was a violation of their clients civil rights.
The case was based on Massachusetts' marriage law which unlike other states does not define what constitutes a married couple.
"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.
But, the legal battle is far from over.
By tossing the issue back to the Legislature, the possibility of an amendment to the state Constitution has gained new life.
The Legislature already has legislation before it which would amend the Constitution to define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The state's powerful Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran of Boston, has endorsed this proposal. Last week, Finneran put the bill on hold pending the court's ruling.
A similar initiative, launched by citizens, was defeated by the Legislature last year on a procedural vote.
For a proposed amendment to be enacted, the House and Senate convene as a constitutional convention and in two successive sessions must approve the proposal by a simple majority. Then the proposal goes on the ballot, and a majority of voters must back it in a statewide ballot referendum.
Governor Mitt Romeny issued a statement shortly after the ruling saying he disagreed with the court's decision and would support a constitutional amendment.
The earliest the amendment would be voted upon is fall 2006.
The court decision will undoubtedly add fuel to the fire of Republicans bent on an amendment to the US Constitution that would permanently bar same-sex marriage.
Evan Wolfson, the executive director of Freedom to Marry says he believes it is too late to change the Massachusetts constitution.
"In 180 days one way or the other same-sex couples will have the right to marry," Wolfson told 365Gay.com.
As for an amendment to the US Constitution, Wolfson said: "Every moment and every breathe we have to show that no one is hurt by gay marriage and push past the scary right wing rhetoric."
"This ruling with 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," said Birch.
"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."
The court ruling also poses a dilemma for other states. Under US law, it is generally believed, other states would have to recognize marriages performed in Massachusetts.
However, the court made reference to the argument in its ruling.
"We would not presume to dictate how another State should respond to today's decision. But neither should considerations of comity prevent us from according Massachusetts residents the full measure of protection available under the Massachusetts Constitution."
Ultimately, it is expected the issue of gay marriage will wind up in the US Supreme Court.
In October, a statewide poll in Massachusetts showed that a majority of voters support gay marriage, and are opposed to any attempt to amend the Constitution to prevent same-sex marriage.
Last summer courts in Ontario and British Columbia ruled Canada's ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. The federal government then announced it would bring in legislation extending same-sex marriage rights across the country.
by Michael J. Meade
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau
©365Gay.com® 2003
"We declare that 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," the ruling declared.
"The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples."
In a 4-3 ruling the court ordered the state Legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days. If there is no solution, the ruling says, licenses must be granted to same-sex couples.
The decision makes Massachusetts the only state in the union to recognize marriage between same-sex couples.
The case was brought by seven same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses.
The group was represented by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders which argued that denying the licenses was a violation of their clients civil rights.
The case was based on Massachusetts' marriage law which unlike other states does not define what constitutes a married couple.
"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.
But, the legal battle is far from over.
By tossing the issue back to the Legislature, the possibility of an amendment to the state Constitution has gained new life.
The Legislature already has legislation before it which would amend the Constitution to define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The state's powerful Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran of Boston, has endorsed this proposal. Last week, Finneran put the bill on hold pending the court's ruling.
A similar initiative, launched by citizens, was defeated by the Legislature last year on a procedural vote.
For a proposed amendment to be enacted, the House and Senate convene as a constitutional convention and in two successive sessions must approve the proposal by a simple majority. Then the proposal goes on the ballot, and a majority of voters must back it in a statewide ballot referendum.
Governor Mitt Romeny issued a statement shortly after the ruling saying he disagreed with the court's decision and would support a constitutional amendment.
The earliest the amendment would be voted upon is fall 2006.
The court decision will undoubtedly add fuel to the fire of Republicans bent on an amendment to the US Constitution that would permanently bar same-sex marriage.
Evan Wolfson, the executive director of Freedom to Marry says he believes it is too late to change the Massachusetts constitution.
"In 180 days one way or the other same-sex couples will have the right to marry," Wolfson told 365Gay.com.
As for an amendment to the US Constitution, Wolfson said: "Every moment and every breathe we have to show that no one is hurt by gay marriage and push past the scary right wing rhetoric."
"This ruling with 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," said Birch.
"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."
The court ruling also poses a dilemma for other states. Under US law, it is generally believed, other states would have to recognize marriages performed in Massachusetts.
However, the court made reference to the argument in its ruling.
"We would not presume to dictate how another State should respond to today's decision. But neither should considerations of comity prevent us from according Massachusetts residents the full measure of protection available under the Massachusetts Constitution."
Ultimately, it is expected the issue of gay marriage will wind up in the US Supreme Court.
In October, a statewide poll in Massachusetts showed that a majority of voters support gay marriage, and are opposed to any attempt to amend the Constitution to prevent same-sex marriage.
Last summer courts in Ontario and British Columbia ruled Canada's ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. The federal government then announced it would bring in legislation extending same-sex marriage rights across the country.
by Michael J. Meade
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau
©365Gay.com® 2003
This article originally appeared on 365gay.com. Republished with permission.
