|
 |
Mass. Court Clears Way for Gay Marriages |
Feb. 5, 2004 |
The court issued the advisory opinion at the request of legislators
who wanted to know whether civil unions would be enough
to satisfy the court after its November ruling that said
gay couples are entitled to all the rights of marriage.
That decision had been written in such a way that it
left open the possibility that civil unions might be
allowed.
But Wednesday's opinion by the Supreme Judicial
Court left no doubt: Only marriage would pass constitutional
muster.
"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate
is seldom, if ever, equal," four justices wrote. "For
no rational reason the marriage laws of the commonwealth
discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering
with language will eradicate that stain. The (civil unions)
bill would have the effect of maintaining and fostering a
stigma of exclusion that the Constitution prohibits."
Paul
Martinek, editor of Lawyers Weekly USA, said that the blunt
opinion erases any confusion.
"The fat lady has sung and she's singing the wedding
march," Martinek said. "It's clear from reading
the majority opinion that there's no basis on which the (court)
will OK anything other than marriage."
The much-anticipated
opinion came a week before next Wednesday's Constitutional
Convention, where the Legislature will consider an amendment
backed by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney that would define marriage
as a union between a man and a woman.
But
the soonest a constitutional amendment could end up on the
ballot would be 2006, meaning that until then, the high court's
decision will be Massachusetts law. Gay couples could get
married in Massachusetts as soon as May, the deadline set
by the court last fall.
"We're going to have to start looking for a band," said
Ed Balmelli, who put down a deposit for a wedding after the
opinion.
The case represents a significant milestone in a
year that has seen broad new recognitions of gay rights in
America, Canada and abroad, including a June U.S. Supreme
Court (news - web sites) decision striking down a Texas ban
on gay sex.
The
White House called the Massachusetts ruling "deeply
troubling."
"Activist judges continue to seek to redefine marriage
by court order without regard for the will of the people," said
presidential spokesman Scott McClellan.
Senate President Robert
Travaglini, who will preside over the constitutional convention,
said he would consult with fellow lawmakers about the next
step.
"I want to have everyone stay in an objective and calm
state as we plan and define what's the appropriate way to
proceed," he said. "There is a lot of anxiety out
there obviously surrounding the issue but I don't want to
have it cloud or distort the discussion."
The federal
government and 38 other states have enacted laws barring
the recognition of any gay marriages in other jurisdictions.
Vermont recognizes marriage-like civil unions that grant
gay couples nearly all the rights and benefits of full marriage,
such as health insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance
rights.
The Massachusetts decision will probably
lead to multiple lawsuits about whether gay marriage benefits
can extend beyond the state's borders. The right to same-sex
marriage would be for state residents only, but the rules
are unclear on how it would be enforced.
The legal battle in Massachusetts
began in 2001, when seven gay couples went to their city
and town halls to obtain marriage licenses. All were denied,
leading them to sue the state.
The
Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that gay couples
have a constitutional right to marry, and gave the Legislature
six months to change state laws to make it happen.
The state
Senate then asked for more guidance from the court.
"The dissimilitude between the terms `civil marriage'
and `civil union' is not innocuous; it is a considered choice
of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex,
largely homosexual, couples to second-class status," the
justices wrote.
Conservative leaders said they would redouble
their efforts to pass the constitutional ban on same-sex
marriages.
"This now puts the pressure back on the Legislature
to do their job to protect and defend marriage for the citizens
of the state to allow them to vote," said Ron Crews,
president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.
Residents
and leaders of Massachusetts towns with sizable gay populations
saw the ruling as a good business opportunity. "The
town can now offer something gays and lesbians have waited
their whole lives for," said Provincetown tourism director
Patricia Fitzpatrick.
Mark Carmien has a sign in his gay-themed
bookstore counting down the days to May 17 ? 103 as of Wednesday.
His store is located in Northampton, a college town in western
Massachusetts that has a large gay population.
"It's now crystal clear, if it wasn't before, that
the court meant marriage. The word itself has power and benefits
that are intangible," said Carmien, who plans to marry
his partner in June. "It's a very brave and historic
decision."
|
|
|
|
News