FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 4, 2004

Marriage Ban Would Reconstitute Discrimination

Glad Praises SJC Opinion that Marriage Ban Would Reconstitute Discrimination Against Same Sex Couple

Calling it “a matter of both principle and practicality,” Mary L. Bonauto, of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) today praised the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) for its Opinion of the Justices that a bill proposing a marriage ban along with civil unions would still violate the equality and liberty guarantees of the state Constitution.

GLAD represented the seven same-sex couples who won an historic court victory ending marriage discrimination on Nov. 18, 2003.  GLAD filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of the plaintiffs to the SJC on Jan. 12. 

“The Court looked at this issue as a matter of principle, not of politics,” said Bonauto.  “While we understand that some find civil unions to be a good compromise in this debate, the fact is it does not equal marriage and does not provide the same protections and rights that come with marriage.”

The SJC Opinion responds to the state Senate’s request of December 12, 2003, for an advisory opinion clarifying whether a new measure banning marriage for same-sex couples but allowing them to join in civil unions would pass muster under the state Constitution.  The proposed civil union law under Senate Bill 2175 would allow couples joined in civil union all of the state-law based rights applicable to spouses, but would withhold the name and the additional legal and social protections of marriage.

The SJC accepted briefs from all interested parties to guide its decision.  Neither the Governor, Attorney General, nor the House or Senate submitted a brief.  Those who did file included a number of organizations fervently opposed to the SJC’s original decision. 

The SJC also heard from supporters of their decision, including:

  * Ninety of the country’s leading professors of constitutional law and history analyzing Goodridge and arguing that the SJC must adhere to principle no matter what criticism it receives;
  * 28 pre-eminent local and national civil rights organizations, along with the Boston Bar Assn and U.S. Rep. John Lewis, an original speaker at the 1963 March on Washington;
  * 17 GLBT organizations whose members are familiar with the practical differences between marriage and civil unions
  * 15 international human rights organizations and 21 professors of international law showing that separate laws for gay people do not provide full equality and legal protections.

“At this point,” said Bonauto, “between the Goodridge case and this Opinion, the SJC has received and reviewed 45 legal briefs across the spectrum on this question.  The SJC clearly believes the word and legal institution are meaningful protections for people and their families because everyone knows that a marriage is the ultimate expression of love and commitment and only marriage bestows the full rights these families deserve.”