In an historic decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that gay and lesbian couples can no longer be excluded from obtaining civil marriages in Massachusetts. The 4-3 ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, filed by New England's Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, is the first of its kind in this country by a final appellate court.

"This is a momentous legal and cultural milestone," said Mary L. Bonauto, an attorney for the couples with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) in Boston. "The law caught up with the reality that gay people and families are part of the fabric of our communities. At long last, gay and lesbian families and their children will finally be equal families in the Commonwealth. This will make a huge difference in people's lives."

Today's decision follows a nearly identical ruling by a Canadian appellate court under the Canadian Constitution on June 10. The Canadian government announced it would not appeal that decision.

The Goodridge case was filed by GLAD in April 2001 on behalf of seven gay and lesbian couples living in communities from Orleans to Boston to Northampton. Each couple applied for a marriage license in order to strengthen their families, gain hundreds of legal protections and responsibilities that are otherwise off-limits, and provide greater security for their children and their surviving partner.

The Court's ruling is based on the due process and equality provisions of the State Constitution. Under the "free and equal" clause in the Constitution, it held that there is no rational reason for this discrimination. As the court put it, "The marriage ban works deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason." Because this ruling is based on the Massachusetts Constitution, there is no appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. But today's state ruling follows a 6-3 majority decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in June that that legal concepts of privacy include gay people's rights to make decisions about personal relationships.

"This is a profound moment for our family," said Hillary Goodridge on behalf of herself and Julie Goodridge, the named plaintiffs in the case. "We will no longer have to try to explain to our eight-year-old daughter why we can't marry, or that we love each other even though we are not married. And more importantly, we'll be able to provide Annie with the full protections under marriage that we now can't possibly provide no matter how many legal documents we draft and sign."

Gary Chalmers, a teacher, and Richard Linnell, a nurse, are a Whitinsville couple who were also plaintiffs in the case. "We are thrilled," said Chalmers. "We've always been like every other family in our neighborhood. But now the one difference has been wiped away. When we get married, we and our daughter will be less vulnerable and more secure."

Added Gloria Bailey of Orleans who has lived in a committed relationship with her partner Linda Davies for 32 years: "Over our many years together, we've seen more and more people come to accept that we're just a regular part of the community. All we want is to preserve and protect the life we've built together. As we both grow older, we have become increasingly aware that we are not fully protected without marriage and we stand to lose everything we've worked so hard to build."

The court stayed its decision for 180 days so the legislature may act, presumably to conform the marriage laws with the court decision. Although a constitutional amendment is pending in the legislature which, if approved by two different legislatures (in 2004 and again in 2005 or 2006) and ratified by the voters in 2006 would undo the decision, Bonauto put aside such concerns.

"The court has said inequality must end," said Bonauto, "and we know that people support us when they understand the real human consequences of discrimination against these families, and when they realize that this decision only invokes civil marriage licenses and does not affect religious practices or convictions."

"On a human level, this is going to make couples who can now marry legally secure and very happy," added Gary Buseck, GLAD's Executive Director, "It won't change life for anyone else, but it will be a monumental change for those individuals who can finally marry the person they love."

The plaintiff couples are David Wilson (age 58) and Robert Compton (53), Edward Balmelli (42) and Michael Horgan (43), Hillary (46) and Julie (45) Goodridge, all of Boston; Maureen Brodoff (50) and Ellen Wade (54) of Newton; Heidi Norton (38) and Gina Smith (38) of Northampton; Gloria Bailey (62) and Linda Davies (57) of Orleans; and Gary Chalmers (37) and Richard Linnell (39) of Whitinsville.

The decision, along with background about the case and the issues, can be found at www.glad.org.

Celebrating its 25th anniversary year, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) is New England's leading legal rights organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status and gender identity and expression.