High court issues bold decision to allow marriage Today is a day for celebration. And wedding plans. The
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional
to ban same-sex couples from the full rights and responsibilities of civil
marriage. The
court has given the Legislature 180 days (six months) to clarify
Massachusetts law to remove this unconstitutional ban. And on
May 15, the weddings may begin and town halls may issue the first marriage
certificates. The
court was wise to involve the Legislature at some level. It is a partial
deferral to the primary argument made against gay marriage by the state in
the landmark case Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.
Attorney Gen. Thomas Reilly had argued, "Although there are ... legitimate
policy arguments for affording same-sex couples some or all of the
benefits now more readily available to married couples, those arguments
should be addressed to the Legislature, which ... is the body best suited
to decide whether, when and how to make such a radical change in
Massachusetts law." But the
court wisely decided that on matters of constitutional rights, especially
the civil rights of a minority, the court has a responsibility to act.
This
follows a long tradition by American courts to take the first step in
granting civil rights to minorities; initially, it was racial minorities
who were not allowed to marry white people into the 20th century, and
today it is gay men and lesbians. Now it
is up to the Legislature to discuss and affirm this decision and make the
necessary changes in various laws. Unlike
the Vermont case, the Legislature does not appear to have the option of
creating a parallel system of civil unions, which polls show is much less
controversial, especially among older Americans. This
also was a wise and bold decision by the Supreme Judicial Court. Canada
made the same ruling several months ago when it made same-sex marriage
legal across that nation. Civil
unions are not the same as civil marriage. They are a case of separate but
not equal. The
major way in which the Vermont civil union law provides fewer rights than
marriage is that these civil unions are not recognized outside Vermont.
Marriage, however, is a simple, straightforward word that is understood
the world over. It is much more likely to be recognized in other states
and other countries where Massachusetts couples travel or live. The
rights and responsibilities that marriage carries are clear and need no
handbook definition. The
seven gay and lesbian couples who brought the Goodridge case to overturn
the ban on same-sex marriage in the Bay State know full well the reasons
they deserve marriage and not some separate track.
Speaking at a press conference yesterday morning, Hillary Goodridge
recalled her frantic hours at Brigham and Women's Hospital eight years ago
when she could not get in to see her partner, Julie Goodridge, after Julie
had just undergone a difficult caesarean section operation. Hillary also
could not get in to see their newborn daughter, Annie, who was rushed to
intensive care because of complications. Hillary
said she and her partner had "health care proxies," legal documents that
gay people obtain to show proof they are to be treated as next of kin. But
in the frantic moments, she did not have the time or even the inclination
to go to the top floor of the hospital and plead for her legal rights with
administrators. Like any loving partner, she simply wanted to see her
loved ones immediately. No such
complication will occur when Hillary or any other gay married partner now
says they are the spouse and need to be at their partner's or their
child's side. Marriage will unlock this right, and hundreds of automatic
rights and protections that come to heterosexual married couples and their
children. We know
there is opposition in the Legislature to same-sex marriage. The
opposition is led by the powerful speaker, Tom Finneran. He supports a
constitutional amendment that would say only a man and a woman could be
married. The governor does, as well. Such an
amendment would take more than three years to be enacted. By then there
will thousands of gay married couples in Massachusetts. Now is
the time for SouthCoast legislators to be leaders in affirming this
fundamental right of marriage for same-sex couples who live in nearly
every town and city in the commonwealth. Our
legislators should listen to advice from former state Rep. Thomas Little,
a Vermont Republican who was the lead author of the Vermont civil union
law in 2000. "These
are your friends and co-workers and neighbors who are asking for a legal
structure to make their families as strong as the families across the
street." Former
Vermont House Speaker Michael Obuchowski, a Democrat, advised
Massachusetts to take courage from the earlier Vermont decision. "A number
of dire predictions were made, none of which came true." Civil
marriage does much to help the small number of gay couples and their
families across our state. And it takes nothing away from anyone else.
This story appeared on Page A16 of The
Standard-Times on November 19, 2003.
Advertising highlights from Today's
Standard-Times
