FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 21, 2003

Statement of Mary L. Bonauto, in Marriage Case

Statement of Mary L. Bonauto, in Marriage Case (Goodridge et al. v. Dept. of Public Health)

We’re very disappointed that our elected officials are blocking the doorway to equality.  The Supreme Judicial Court was clear that it is unconstitutional to deny these couples the right to marry and it’s mean to play politics with people’s lives.  (“[W]e conclude that the marriage ban does not meet the rational basis test for either due process or equal protection”).

It is basic common sense that nothing short of or different from marriage can provide the same “protections, benefits and obligations” of marriage.  You can’t split “marriage” from the legal protections and obligations associated with it.  Nor did the Court do so.  The Court repeatedly linked being married with its protections.  (“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. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under the law.”)

The 3 dissenting justices saw it the same way we do.  While each of them objected to the fact that the Court, rather than the legislature, made the decision to end the exclusion of gay people from marriage, they saw this as a marriage ruling.  They didn’t see “wiggle room” or any option other than marriage.  As Justice Cordy put it, the majority “conclude[d] that a marriage license cannot be denied to an individual who wishes to marry someone of the same sex.”

“Civil unions,” however defined, are not an adequate remedy.  By definition they are not marriage.  The word “marriage” is one of the major “protections” of marriage.  Everyone knows that a married person has the right to be by his or her spouse’s side no matter what emergency may arise.  Only a legally married couple has the unique legal status marriage confers and which allows marriage to be respected by state and federal governments, other countries and third parties like banks and employers.  Married couples are also protected with over 1000 federal laws in areas as diverse as the right to transfer property between themselves without paying taxes and social security survivor benefits.  Married couples can travel freely without having their family relationship challenged.  Civil unions cannot provide these protections.

The AG’s idea that the legislature is the only proper place to sort out people’s civil rights is just wrong.  The AG pressed that argument in court and lost.  The Courts have always had the power to say when a law draws the wrong line, and they did so here.  If the legislature wants to act, it can still conform the marriage licensing laws to the Court’s holding.

This 4-3 ruling was courageous and correct.  Many rulings of this court or the Supreme Court were split just as closely.  Bush v. Gore (5-4) handing Pres. Bush his office, Miranda rights (5-4), Perez v. Sharp (4-3) striking interracial marriage bans, Michigan Law School affirmative action case (5-4), prohibiting prayer at graduation ceremonies (5-4).