FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 18, 2004

Superior Court Denies Immediate Relief to Non-Resident Couples

Massachusetts Superior Court Denies Immediate Relief to Non-Resident Gay and Lesbian Couples

A Massachusetts trial judge today declined immediate relief to the eight out-of-state gay and lesbian couples, represented by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), who filed the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality and discriminatory enforcement of the so-called 1913 Law. The law is being used by state officials to exclude non-resident, same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts. GLAD plans to appeal this decision.

“While this is clearly a disappointment for the families and many others, we are not discouraged,” said Michele Granda, an attorney with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) which represents the eight couples. Granda added, “In fact, the decision provides us with validation of our core argument: that the law violates the spirit of the Goodridge decision, and that Massachusetts should not be in the business of discriminating against gay and lesbian families.”

The case, Cote-Whitacre, et al. v. Department of Public Health, was originally filed on June 18, 2004, on behalf of these eight gay and lesbian couples from across New England and New York, who stated that they were nonresidents when they applied for marriage licenses and now face claims that their marriages are void. Three of the eight couples were denied licenses altogether. Together with Johnstone, et al. v. Reilly, a suit by 13 city and town clerks challenging the same law, the couples and the clerks sought a preliminary injunction barring the Commonwealth from enforcing the discriminatory 1913 Law pending a final decision in the lawsuit. Today’s decision by Suffolk Superior Court Judge Carol S. Ball denies the couples’ and the clerks’ request for immediate relief but makes no final determination on the merits of the pending lawsuits.

The trial court’s denial of preliminary relief does not prevent the couples from receiving a favorable final decision in their lawsuit. As Granda explained, “This case is still alive. The trial court will hear further argument on the merits and the case will be decided on appeal. We’re confident of our ultimate success.”

The plaintiff couples in the case are: Sandi and Bobbi Cote-Whitacre of Essex Junction, VT; Amy Zimmerman and Tanya Wexler of New York, NY; Mark Pearsall and Paul Trubey of Lebanon, CT; Katy and Kristin Gossman of Meriden, CT; Judi and Lee McNeil-Beckwith of Providence, RI; Wendy Baker and Mary Norton of Providence, RI; Michael Thorne and James Therbege of Cape Elizabeth, ME; and Les Schoof and Ed Butler of Hart’s Location, NH. Each couple sought legal marriage as the best route to strengthen their family, gain hundreds of legal protections and responsibilities that are otherwise off-limits, and provide greater security for their children.

“This is a very, very hard day for us,” said Bobbi-Cote Whitacre, one of the named plaintiffs in the case who has been with her partner Sandi-Cote-Whitacre for over 36 years. “We know that some day this unfair disrespect of our family will end. We now know that people out there understand and appreciate our concerns as a lesbian couple about aging, illness and retirement.”

Michael Thorne, who has been with his partner, Jim, for 21 years and adopted their two-year old son in Massachusetts, added “Jim and I have lived in Massachusetts for a combined total of sixty-six years. We have trouble understanding why Massachusetts would let us form a family through adoption but would refuse to let us strengthen our family through marriage.”

For more information on the case and for profiles of the eight plaintiff couples, go to http://www.glad.org/work/cases/cote-whitacre-et-al-v-dept-public-health/.