   |
   |
    |
   |
  |
    |
  |
 |
| Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders |
|
HILLARY AND JULIE GOODRIDGE et al. v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court No. 08860 PLAINTIFFS’ FILINGS
Filed by attorneys at Foley Hoag LLP in Boston on behalf of 9 top scholars in the field of state constitutional law, including Robert Williams of Rutgers, author of the leading casebook on the topic, Lawrence Friedman, of Harvard Law School, co-author of a forthcoming treatise on the Massachusetts Constitution, and Joseph R. Grodin, a former justice of the California Supreme Court. The brief analyzes the history and application of the Massachusetts Constitution’s liberty and equality provisions and concludes that the exclusion of the plaintiffs from marriage violates the Massachusetts Constitution. Filed by attorneys at Palmer & Dodge LLP in Boston on behalf of Monroe Inker and Charles Kindregan, authors of the most respected and widely-used treatise on Massachusetts family law, the brief explains why “procreation” cannot be the basis for excluding gay and lesbian couples from marriage. Ability or willingness to procreate has never been a condition for entering a marriage, nor has the inability to have children been a legal basis for ending a marriage. Settled constitutional doctrine establishes that decisions about having children are matters of important personal concern and the state supports the choice of couples to bring children into their lives by encouraging adoption and access to reproductive technology. Filed by attorneys at Bingham McCutchen LLP in Boston, on behalf of the Boston Bar Association and the Mass. Lesbian & Gay Bar Ass’n, the brief demonstrates that marriage is a gateway to hundreds of legal protections and responsibilities for married couples and their children. This enormous edifice of protections recognizes the emotional commitment of a couple (e.g., automatic rights to medical decision-making) as well as their economic interdependence (e.g. ability to buy family health insurance). The overwhelming majority of these legal protections are unavailable unless a couple is married. Filed by attorneys at Hale & Dorr in Boston on behalf of 7 child welfare and mental health organizations, including the National Association of Social Workers, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the heads of Pediatrics at several Boston area hospitals, the brief discusses the scientific consensus that gay and lesbian parents are as good parents as are non-gay parents, and that children can thrive raised in either setting. The brief explores the decades of research that has led organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics to support the creation of a legal bond between a child and his or her lesbian or gay parents. Filed by attorneys at Peabody & Arnold, and Professor Emeritus Arthur Berney and Assistant Professor Josephine Ross of Boston College Law School, the brief explains the distinction between the institution of civil marriage at issue in this case, and the religious rite of marriage. Filed on behalf of religious denominations and organizations such as the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation and the Unitarian Universalist Association, along with over 100 clergy and other representatives of 13 different communities of faith, the brief also states that many religious faiths and people of faith support the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry under the civil laws. Filed by attorneys at Goodwin Procter in Boston on behalf of leading family and legal historians, the brief shows that change has been the one constant of marriage law. Tracing marriage from its earliest days in Massachusetts, the brief demonstrates that the judiciary has always had a key role in reshaping marriage -- whether by questioning the ban on interracial marriage, or ending the subordination of women in marriage, or by ensuring that marital partners share reciprocal rights and obligations. The brief argues that allowing same-sex couples to marry is no more controversial than other changes in marriage that we now accept as commonplace. Among the 26 historians on the brief are Nancy F. Cott of Harvard, author of Public Vows, a recently published book on marriage in the United States, Michael Grossberg, a lawyer and historian and editor of the American Historical Review, and Hendrik Hartog, author of a recent book chronicling the history of marriage. Filed by Krokidas & Bluestein in Boston on behalf of 25 local and national civil rights groups ranging from the Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Association of Hispanic Attorneys to the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, the brief states that the discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians is just as wrong and just as legally indefensible as past uses of marriage law to forbid couples of different races from marrying or to deprive women of their legal rights. The brief also argues that government classifications on the basis of sexual orientation, like those based on race, national origin and sex, should receive careful scrutiny from the courts. Filed by attorneys at Ropes & Gray in Boston and Professor Robert Wintemute of King’s College, London, on behalf of 16 international human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and the International Federation of Human Rights, and 19 professors of international law, the brief shows that this Court’s issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples would be consistent with trends in Europe, the Scandinavian countries, Canada, Israel and South Africa. In each of these places, the courts or legislatures or both understand that discrimination against same-sex couples is a human rights issue and have begun taking strong steps to rectify the ongoing harm caused by governmental discrimination. For example, the Netherlands allows gay and lesbian couples to marry. Filed by attorneys at Hill & Barlow in Boston and Professor David Cruz of the University of Southern California Law School on behalf of 13 constitutional law professors, such as First Amendment experts David Cole of Georgetown University School of Law and William N. Eskridge, Jr. of Yale Law School, and 9 gay and lesbian groups, the brief argues that the act of entering into a marriage and living in marriage is a form of constitutionally protected association, and that marriage is uniquely powerful way of communicating the depth of commitment a couple shares. Filed by attorneys at Choate Hall & Stewart in Boston and at Kimball, Brousseau and Michon in Boston on behalf of 20 professors of remedies and constitutional litigation, the brief argues that the fact that some people find this case controversial is not an excuse for the court to decline to act or to refer this matter to the legislature. Courts have always been involved in controversial matters, and that is their role under our system of government. The brief also argues that if the court finds the Plaintiffs’ rights have been violated, the only appropriate remedy is to order the Defendants to issue marriage licenses.
Filed by the Massachusetts Bar Association, representing 18,000 lawyers from across Massachusetts, the brief argues that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage violates the liberty and equality guarantees of the Massachusetts Constitution (Articles 1, 6, 7 & 10). The brief urges the Court to find the exclusion unconstitutional and allow same-sex couples to marry. |
[ About GLAD || Rights & Resources || Legal InfoLine || GLAD Cases || Marriage || News Room || Join Us || Events || Donate to GLAD ][ Home || GLAD en Español || Contact GLAD || Site Map ]