Last week, Massachusetts’ highest court declared the state’s ban on gay marriage to be unconstitutional and demanded that the state change its laws. The CNN article on the topic is fascinating, revealing the underlying tensions.
– Is marriage about children?
– Do the courts have the responsibility to protect marginalized populations?
– Why are men far more afraid of gay culture than women?
Why do people in power feel so motivated by inequality that they are determined to make a constitutional amendment to protect their way of life? I’m fascinated by the fears that this issue strikes in straight folks… what on earth is the big deal? It’s funny because we live in a country that likes to preach certain rhetoric but not really defend it.
Equality for all! (When could women vote? What about blacks?) Tolerance! Separation of church and state!
Massachusetts court rules ban on gay marriage unconstitutional
State Legislature given 6 months to develop laws
Tuesday, November 18, 2003 Posted: 3:32 PM EST (2032 GMT)
Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced their ruling Tuesday.
Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced their ruling Tuesday.
Story Tools
Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article
Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site
more video VIDEO
Plaintiffs’ attorney Mary Bonauto praises the Massachusetts court ruling that found a ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional. (November 18)
premium content
PLAY VIDEO
QUICKVOTE
Should the Massachusetts Legislature move to allow same-sex marriages?
Yes
No
VIEW RESULTS
RELATED
Interactive: A state-by-state look at sodomy laws
Bush uncertain about gay marriage ban
On the Scene: Toobin: Issue could spread to other states
FindLaw’s Joanna Grossman: Assessing civil unions
Interactive: Same-sex marriage laws
Read the ruling: Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health (FindLaw, PDF)external link
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts external link
Supreme Court strikes down sodomy law
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Same-sex marriage
Civil Rights
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
or Create your own
Manage alerts | What is this?
(CNN) — Massachusetts’ highest court ruled Tuesday that the state cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry and ordered the state’s lawmakers to devise changes in the law within six months.
In a 4-3 ruling, the court stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the seven couples that challenged the Massachusetts law.
The ruling could set new legal ground, and drew quick reaction from advocates on both sides of the issue.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney issued a paper statement saying he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and he would support an amendment to the state’s constitution “to make that expressly clear.”
“Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community’s most rewarding and cherished institutions,” the court’s ruling said. “That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law.”
Vermont is the only state in the United States that allows same-sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage. Vermont calls them civil unions, rather than marriage. California’s State Assembly recently passed a domestic partnership law to provide similar benefits, but it stops short of allowing gays to marry. (States determine marriage laws)
Governor might seek alternative to marriage
Romney left the door open for some other way of recognizing same-sex couples.
“Of course,” he said, “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.”
Connie Mackey of the conservative Family Research Council criticized the ruling, saying it was “a clear case of the courts overruling the majority opinion of the people.”
“If the will of the people has anything to do with it … the people will throw out any legislator that upholds this ruling,” she told CNN. “The culture has seen the family unit for thousands of years as one man and one woman for the purpose of raising children.”
Mackey also urged passage of a federal constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages.
But Elizabeth Birch, director of the gay rights organization Human Rights Campaign, argued that the courts are not obliged to support a majority of the people.
“If not for courts, African-Americans would not have had the right to vote, women would not have the right to vote,” she said. “The purpose of a constitution is to protect a minority group from the wrath of the majority.
“The majority of people understand that a government-issued civil license to marry is not a threat to anyone,” Birch added.
Court used constitution as basis for ruling
The seven same-sex couples that sued the state for denying them marriage licenses argued the Massachusetts’ constitution prohibits discrimination because of sex.
In its ruling, the Massachusetts court rejected arguments based on religious or moral grounds — from either side of the contentious issue.
“Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach,” the ruling said.
“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,” the court said. “We conclude that it may not.”
Opposition to gay marriage, survey shows
Mark Carmien, right, owner of Pride and Joy of Northampton, Massachusetts, celebrates with friends after the state Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling.
Mark Carmien, right, owner of Pride and Joy of Northampton, Massachusetts, celebrates with friends after the state Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling.
The U.S. Supreme Court is unlikely to interfere in the ruling, which was made solely on the basis of state law and not brought into federal courts.
Gay activists say the American judicial system is beginning to catch up with modern society.
In June the Supreme Court ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. (Full story) On June 10, an appeals court in the Canadian province of Ontario struck down a ban on same-sex marriage.
But a majority of people surveyed in late October said gay marriages should not be legally recognized, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. According to the survey, 61 percent said no when asked whether gay marriages should be recognized as valid by law. Thirty-five percent said yes.
The poll, taken October 24-26, surveyed 1,006 people and had an error margin of plus or minus three percentage points.
The same poll showed sharp difference on the issue based on gender. According to the survey, 70 percent of men said no to legalizing gay marriage while 26 percent supported such unions. The survey showed that 53 percent of women opposed gay marriages, while 43 percent supported legalizing them. The question posed by gender had a sampling error of plus or minus five percentage points.
CNN Correspondent Maria Hinojosa contributed to this report.
