Full same-sex marriage

Providence Journal Editorial, February 6, 2004

Yesterday's advisory opinion by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court clarifies its Nov. 18 decision on gay marriage and seems to settle the question.

In its clarification, which the state Senate requested before considering civil-union proposals that would not involve full "marriage," the court stated that such proposals would not satisfy its Nov. 18 ruling. The court insists on allowing outright marriage.

It now appears that if the legislature fails to act to reflect the court's ruling by the May 18 deadline it set, city and town clerks will have no choice but to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Governor Romney has made noises about instructing them not to, but state Atty. Gen. Thomas Reilly, who opposes gay marriage, has stated that Mr. Romney does not have the standing to do that.

Meanwhile, the legislature is about to hold hearings on a state-constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage -- apparently the only recource that foes still have. If approved by the House and Senate meeting in "constitutional convention," the amendment would go before the voters in 2006.

If ratified, the ban could leave same-sex couples who had married in the interim in legal limbo. But our sources suggest that the proposed ban does not have widespread support.

As we have noted here before, it is proper in our federal system for domestic-law matters such as this to be dealt with at the state level. Gov. Robert Taft, of Ohio, has signed a law barring same-sex marriage there. But Massachusetts has a better idea.

'Freedom to Marry Rings' image upper right © H. Mitchell.