From HRC:
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is scheduled to release its ruling at 10:00am EDT today in the case of Goodridge et al. vs. Department of Public Health. This much anticipated ruling could make Massachusetts the first state to issue civil marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

[ November 18, 2003, 07:06 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

Sweet! Any predictions? I'm not all together clear on the details of the case, but some of you lawyers must have followed it closely enough to make a stab.

The ruling has passed...though licenses are not going to be issued, yet.
YES!

[ November 18, 2003, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

And ...?

They ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban gay marriage!

[ November 18, 2003, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: araanib ]

A super-informative link:
http://www.lawyersweeklyusa.com/goodridge1.cfm

Answers many of the questions that most of us probably have now...

Woo hoo!

I guess this means that BostonGirl will have to get married in Massachusetts next summer after our "official" wedding in Vermont and honeymoon in Canada. Call it a "Tour de Wed".

:cool:

THIS KICKS ASS!! Damn! This is so awesome!! I thought these things would happen in my liftime like in 10 years, not this year. So, 2003 IS the year of the gay. wink

this is good news with a huge asterisk. the leader of the legislature (democratic, very conservative, absurdly powerful) has been floating the idea of dealing with this decision (in hypothetical terms, before the decision came down) with an amendment to the state constitution which would define marriage as between a man and a woman. a citizen-led attempt to make a similar amendment was killed by legislative maneuvering last year (to allow the effort to die without spineless reps and sens having to vote yea or nay). my sense is, and i wouldn't lay very big odds at this point, that we'll have a vermont-style (thank you, dr. dean!) domestic partnership law.

keep your fingers crossed that it goes that way, then y'all come to mass and get hitched and i'll host your reception at the ptown house. woo hoo!

The text of the decision is here:

http://www.state.ma.us/courts/courtsandjud...ourt/index.html

Disappointing that it was a split decision, and quite disappointing that they left it up to the legislature - six months from now will be the heat of the presidential election, and even the dems will be nervous about doing anything to cause a backlash. Then, whatever they decide, doesn't Mormon Romney have to sign it??

Read the dissents - they're most interesting. Basically they're all saying "Hey, I loves me some homos! But them other folks - they don't loves them some homos. So no need to rock the boat!"

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem as good as we might have hoped. They ruled it was unconstitutional, but then gave the Legislature 180 days to solve the problem. This "solution" could be anything from gay marriage (doubtful), to civil unions (somewhat likely) or proposing a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman (this proposal has the support of the Speaker of the House).

It's a judicial cop-out in my book. It says "you're right, but we can't give you your rights." Any other time the courts find a constitutional violation, they simply strike down the law at issue. This b.s. of sending back to the legislature to "fix" the problem is simply another way of passing the buck. :mad:

actually, sending the problem back to the legislature is probably doing the gay partnership movement a favor. if the court had simply said, "gays can marry. give these folks marriage licences," the backlash would have been enormous and the fervor for an amendment to correct a ruling by what would be seen as an over-reaching activist court would have been unstoppable.

the court has, as the vermont court did, created some breathing room wherein calmer heads can prevail. this is an issue we want handled on rational and legal and fairness terms, not emotional ones. we lose when emotions rule.

the focus now turns to the legislature, which, i hope takes its time and doesn't pass some knee-jerk response which we would likely regret.

this is exactly what vermont went through when its supreme court made the same ruling, and that had a very happy ending!

[ November 18, 2003, 08:05 AM: Message edited by: thersis ]

Romney has already vowed to veto any legislation that would allow for gay marriages, don't know if he has specifically promised to veto civil union laws.

The good news on the state (commonwealth)constitutional amendment issue is that the process is long and difficult in Mass. If the citizen petition had not been defeated, only 25% of the legislature would have to vote for the amendment in each of two successive years before it went to the citizens for ratification.

With the legislator-sponsored measure, 50% of the legislators will have to vote yes in each of 2 years before it goes to the citizens. The length of time alone for this process may be enough to kill it - as the world will not end of Civil Unions are passed.

I agree that it is a "pass the buck" decision but at least it is not an outright defeat.

I just don't get how a State with Senators like Kennedy and Kerry can have a velvet gloved right winger as Governor. Those democrats and independents who voted for Romney because of "fiscal reasons" will soon discover that their vote wasn't so benign after all.

I think it had something to do with that shirtless campaign commercial of him swimming with his kids.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031118/D.../D7UT3KPG0.html

Looks like it is movnig in the right direction

Every silver lining has a cloud: this will galvanize the GOP into using it as a stick to beat the Dems into the ground in '04. What an easy campaign for Republicans, especially down south. Democrat = gay lover, and a sure-fire loss.

And gays will lose out in the process. After all, there's nothing like the leading political party shouting from the roof tops that we are unfit to marry to legitimize age-old anti-gay sentiments.

It's hard to get too excited about this decision for the reasons that Tom Ford stated. This will even further galvanize the forces pushing for the amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I would have been happy if this had come out a year from now, after the ferver of the sodomy decision had died down. This icing on the cake may be too sweet. I hope I am wrong.

GREAT ruling, but I have to say it scares me. I think this will give more momentum to the conservatives to pass that horrible federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and the associated language in it may destroy any rights already given to gay couples.

But change is scary, we have to move forward, and the only way to make change is to stand up and vocally support what we believe in.

I agree that the legislature is the one that should be setting out the structure of the marriage and/or civil union bill. The court was activist enough to make this finding, it should not be crafting legislation.

This is another big step for the GLBT community, but we have to be ready to have a huge backlash. The best way to survive is for us to be visible, to be outspoken, and to be rational and logical in our arguments.

Congrats to the people who have worked so hard for this victory.

Tom, this won't galvanize just Republicans. Many, many Democrats, even those who might call themselves "moderate," will feel as if this has been thrust upon them (no pun intended). They'll have the opinion of "this has gone too far," and the end result will be a backlash that makes things worse.

Many folks will look upon this as another example of activist judges who usurp legislative authority in matters generally left to the latter and not the former. The fact that the MA. Supreme Court ordered the legislature to do something is but one example of this judicial activism, and it is this that will turn off many folks.

Be careful what you wish for, folks, for I see one of two results from today's decision:

1.) MA. ends up amending its constitution, thereby rendering today's court decision moot. The matter then ends there.

2.) MA. doesn't end up amending its constitution, and the matter finds its way into the federal courts, where, absent a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court upholds a state's right to define marriage as between a man and woman.

Don't think that Lawrence v. Texas meant that gay marriage was right around the corner. When it comes to gay marriage, even the present Supreme Court considers that a whole different ball of wax.

[ November 18, 2003, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Perhaps I shouldn't be so pessimistic.

After all, the Log Cabin Republicans and other gay Repubs may succeed in taking this off the GOP 04 agenda.

I'm taking this one step at a time...a date first... then maybe marriage...

[ June 03, 2004, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: m1 ]

Ever heard of Loving v. Virginia? It's the U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled denying interracial couples a marriage license was unconstitutional. The Court didn't send it back to the Virginia Legislature to "craft a solution". They said it's unconstitutional, now give them the license. What's the difference here?

As for the Massachusetts case--activist court, my ass! They definitely were more passive than active (have fun with that analogy). Where else on CONSTITUTIONAL issues, do courts give the legislature a do-over? (In statutory cases, that would be the proper approach.) Only when it comes to the great unspeakable gay issues do the courts pull out their judicial tap shoes (the exception being the Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case).

[ November 18, 2003, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: KeyWest Guy ]

I'm sorry, but I'm so tired of hearing about judicial activists. they have been put on the bench to make decisions. If they 100% agreed with every decision made by the legislature, then they would be wasting everyone's time and money.

I read the Family research Council web site daily, I think it's important to know what the enemy is up to and what their arguments are. They talk a ton about judicial activism, but when those same judges (SCOTUS, not MA) were installing President Bush, they didn't have a problem with judicial activism. I know the counter argument is that they were affirming the laws of Florida, but aren't the MA judges just affirming their constitution?

If it was something the conservatives liked, it wouldn't be activism.

Key West guy is quite right; the court was hardly being activist, and in any case, it should be up to the representatives of the people (the legislature) to make a decision either way. The New Jersey Supreme Court also supposedly is going to rule on this at some point soon, and from what I've heard, it looks like they'd have to uphold the possibility of gay marriage. The difference with Massachusetts is that a very liberal Democratic governor (a union stooge) and a moderate Democratic legislature control New Jersey, so they might actually allow this go through, though it would probably mean that Democrats would return to being the minority party of New Jersey (with moderate Republicans controlling everything).

I would venture that many voters in Mass. saw Romney as a check on the Democratic-run legislature, not simply in a fiscal sense, but ideologically. In this case, his conservatism matches well with the more small-minded Democrats like Finneran. Were Dukakis, or the Republican Weld, sitting as governor, you'd have a state executive who would probably openly announce support for supporting gay marriages. That would be the optimal scenario. When can Romney be turned out of office?

As for the Log Cabineers, good luck! One of the few decent things I can say about W at this point is that he hasn't gone whole hog for the federal constitutional amendment--he said there was no need for it "yet," I believe, though others in the GOP, like Frist and Slagtorum, can't wait to see it put to a vote.

Point of fact: No, they were not affirming the laws of Florida. They were resolving an issue specified by the U.S. Constitution and federal law--an issue that gave a state's legislature the sole power to determine its electors, and Congress the power to mandate when all U.S. electors must be certified. The FL. Supreme Court usurped this authority, and the U.S. Supreme Court spanked them for that.

As you stated, judges are, indeed, put on the bench to make decisions. It's when they start acting like legislatures or start using their personal desires to accomplish decisions that they've done wrong.

BTW, don't think I'm here blasting this decision. I'm just looking at it from a different point of view. I'm trying to look at it from a constitutional decision, perhaps eventually a federal constitutional one, and sometimes, my position on an issue or two goes against what is supposed to be the pro-gay position. This is because as much as I may personally want or prefer a specific judicial opinion, if it affronts the U.S. Constitution, I cannot support it, no matter how masochistic or contradictory that may sometimes seem.

What good news would be complete without one of RZB's gratuitous cheap shots?

Here's more: look for Governor Schwarzenegger to undo the cut in AIDS funding done at the last minute by one of Gray Davis' misguided minions.

Off-target Parting Shot from the Davis Administration

1) Amending the Massachusetts Constitution will take over two years, as any amendment has to pass two consecutive legislative sessions, then be passed by the voters. Hard to say what the landscape will look like at that point, but there will certainly be 100s (or more) of gay marriages/CUs by then.

2) The US Supreme Court cannot overrule the state SJC on a matter pertaining to the state Constitution.

Advice to PhillyFan: Don't pack your bags. There's this little item from the Mass. laws:
"No marriage shall be contracted in this commonwealth by a party residing and intending to reside in another jurisdiction if such marriage would be void if contracted in such other jurisdiction, and every marriage contracted in this commonwealth in violation hereof shall be null and void."

Rats. There goes the marriage tourism business. The Provincetown Business Guild will not be pleased.

I agree with some of the previous posts that the Massachusetts court is doing what's within its realm. There's the whole separation of branches of government, and each branch needs to understand its role. The Legislature creates the law. The courts interprets it.

While this sounds like passing the buck to some, at least the courts (in Massachusetts as well as in Hawaii) have taken the brave step to see discrimination when it's in front of them. Now this puts the issue in the forefront and forces the legislature to deal with it.

Unfortunately, as seen in Hawaii, the Legislature is made up of several people who are afraid of public sentiment and goes with the latest poll results. That's the sorry state of affairs in this democracy.

Still, with more states being challenged to face the issue of same sex marriages, at least this issue will not go away and eventually people will see the light.

There seems to be some confusion out there. The Court did not pass the buck to the legislature. They gave the legislature six months to act before their decision becomes effective, but the legislature's options are limited. The Court held that:

1. the law as it currently stands bars same-sex couples from getting marriage licenses (and all the benfits that flow from one).

2. the law as it currently stands is unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples.

So the legislature can't write a law to restore the old way. They could pass a civil union law a la Vermont, but only if the benefits (and obligations) of such a civil union are identical, in every respect but name, to marriage. Even that might not be good enough for the court, whose ruling today was forceful and unequivocal.

The federal courts can do absolutely nothing to overturn this. The Court based its decision on the Massachusetts Constitution, which is more protective of individual rights than the federal constitution. That's the way our system works -- the federal constitution provides minimal guarantees against government intrusion of our rights, and each state is free to provide more -- but not less -- prtoection.

The only ways this gets overturned are (1) an amendment ot the state constitution or (2) an amendment to the federal cosntitution.

The first is unlikely to happen. It takes a long time, for starters, so six months from now, expect wedding bells.

The second is perhaps more likely to happen, but even that requires ratification by 38 states if the Congress passes it. If you're old enough to remember the ERA, you know how drawn out that process can be. To be sure, most of the Confederacy/Bible Belt would ratify it post haste, but I think it a safe bet that Washington, California, Oregon, Michigan, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, New York, Wisconsin at least would probably reject it. Two more rejections and it's toast. (and some of the libertarian leaning Western states, like Wyoming, for example, might be anti-amendment).

So, all you committed Massachusetts couples, start booking your reception halls. could this make Boston the new gay mecca, as marriage minded gays flock here to set up homes?

I'd LOVE to live in New England if it didn't get so freakin' cold in the winter!

Yes, the federal courts cannot undo this decision, but MIB is right that the federal courts are destined to get a Mass. case. After the law is passed permitting Massachusetts gay civil unions/marriages, someone will get married there, and then move to a state that does not recognise the marriage. The couple will bring a federal suit alleging that the other state has to give "full faith and credit" to the Mass. marriage. So the federal courts will decide whether a state can define a marriage as between a man and a woman, or whether it has to accept Massachusetts' definition. The US Supremes get this case and they will find a way to say that states can determine for themselves what a marriage is. So we will have states that permit civil unions/marriages and we will have states that will not. Kind of like slave states and free states.

If that happens, gays and lesbians will gradually migrate to the "marriage" states, and they will be more progressive and have more and better style and taste.

"The US Supreme Court cannot overrule the state SJC on a matter pertaining to the state Constitution." (JJ from JP)

I agree. I do not see any Federal Jurisdiction here. I am not a lawyer - but I think the Mass. Sup. Ct. is the court of last resort here!

Way to go Massachusetts! :cool:

I spoke briefly with my sister about this a few days ago, before the ruling, naturally. She said "it is amazing how many people have a problem with this." What is good is that the state set up such a long time period for changing the Constitution that the people of Mass. have a chance to get used to this. I know I will be advocating strongly with my friends/family members in Mass, and I urge everyone else to do the same.

The Massachusetts SJC's official synopsis of today's ruling. The entire text is also available as a 160-page .pdf file.

The Homosexual Menace

When it conflicts with or causes problems with the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court can, indeed, overrule a state constitution. Remember, the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause also means no state laws or state constitutions can supersede or conflict with it.

The federal courts can do something about this. See my most recent post immediately above this one.

BTW, if for some reason gay marriage becomes "official" marriage in MA.--whatever that means, I admit--the federal courts WILL get involved if said MA. marriages are challenged in other states. This is where the Full Faith & Credit part and Supremacy Clause parts come in to play.

This is going to be fun!

Tom Tomorrow rawks.

File this under Least Surprising Press Release, Like, Ever: "Others"? You mean the rabidly homophobic wingnuts that you pander to at every turn?

They won't, obviously, but I just wish the anti- crowd would just concede defeat in this particular culture war and move on, saving us the time and expense, when ultimately, they're going to lose anyway.

And, slightly related, why are homophobes so concerned with men and anal sex?

[ November 18, 2003, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

"When it conflicts with or causes problems with the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court can, indeed, overrule a state constitution." (MIB)

Honest question here. If the two people who seek to get married in Mass. are Mass. residents... the US Sup. Ct. would have jurisdiction? I don't see how the Full Faith and Credit Clause would 'come into' it. :confused:

_____


It took our good friend from Alabama (Bill Pryor)no time to ease the minds of his 'fundie' constituents...


Bill Pryor!


_____

Looks like three options:

1. Canada-style marriage - the full monty - and an instant increase in other states specifically baring marriages between other than a man and a woman to avoid the possibility of being forced to recognize another states gay marriages.

2. Vermont style unions. Noboby's fully content and there will be as least two states where same-sex people can go to have a showcase "union" that can be ignored outside the state.

3. There's some sort of change in the 1-person majority in the Mass Supreme court causing a reversal.

I'm hoping for option two.

One would just increase the backlash and elongate the process of obtaining equal recognition of same-sex relationships. Two would represent a loss on a technicality and also extend the process.

But three both legally recognizes the equivalency of same-sex relationships before the law and has a better chance of becoming required nationally by a future Supreme Court. Gay relationships don't need to mimic traditional marriage to have equal recognition before the law.

I am pleased and at the same time infuriated at what has been said following the courts ruling. I am pleased that it was at least stated that banning same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. That's a big step in the right direction and can be footing for further gains.
I'm ticked off at all the comments that are being said in reaction to the ruling. Comments by the Gov. of Mass., the president of the USA, and otehr elected officials that are hell bent on denying rights to homosexual men and women under the guise of religion. I get so ticked that they use religion because I am a religeous and spiritual person and the things that are said only serve to drive more gay men and women away from churches, temple, mosques (sp)or whatever group setting where people join together to worship. This is not about religion this is about their hate! The people that hide behind religion are not new. They are the same recycled old cronies that tried to keep down civil rights for afro-americans. If you are scared of change, then use religion to bring down your foes. Who would question you if you are doing God's word? These people are nothing more than false prophets and will be dealt with by God himself as he has dealt with other false prophets trying to lead his people to hate. I better stop now.

Thanks for that Bill Pryor link. But doesn't those additions to AL law get trumped by the Full Faith deal? I'd be curious to know.

RE: Sportinlifes options.

#1 is the only one that matters. All else is second-class citizenship, period. But political realities are important and, as Wade points out, so much of this is a religious thing. Well, OK, and weirdo conservatives worrying about men buttf**king, but still. I've seen the idea that the debate be framed as:

All rights--ALL, across the board--are given out equally to hetero/homo/whatever couples by the state, calling them Civil Unions or something. In return, religious institutions will not be forced to perform ceremonies (that's all they are, the state has the legal authority, right?). In return, the religious people have to shut the heck up about it.

[ November 18, 2003, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

john, my explanation was not meant to say the federal courts could get involved now; rather, they could get involved if a conflict with the Full Faith & Credit Clause would occur. Example: By next spring, MA. gays get married. Then one or more of these wedded couples moves to another state. Individual state DOMA laws notwithstanding, per the Full Faith & Credit Clause, those states would be forced to recognize the marriage no less than a heterosexual marriage. This would be decreed by a federal court somewhere, though a federal court may also decree that gay marriages do not apply.

Then would begin the big battle, probably finding its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In another thread, Cowboys Fan posted

The words of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts sent chills up and down my spine. How long have some of us longed to hear this? The Constitution is going to be stretched to provide more opportunties and more freedom. Amazing. The court says:

Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.


TC replied

Great ruling for Massachusetts. MA Governor is already talking about a "marriage protection bill" however. Until this is addressed as a federal matter, however, it is never going to stand for the country. This is a victory, though.

MIB gets partial credit, but he's still wrong. This will become a federal issue when agy couple in Massachusetts moves to anotber state and attempts to force the new state to treat them as married for all purposes, relying on the full Faith and Credit Clause in the federal constititution. This will happen, both because people move a lot and because this is precisely the strategy the pro-marriage movement has devised: win in one state, then leverage it via full faith and credit to the whole country. As MIB says, this will be fun.

Where MIB errs is by saying this gives the U.S. Supreme Court the ability to overturn the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Absolutely not. It can prevent the couple's new state from being forced to recognize their marriage, but he couple could happily move back here, where under the Massachusetts Constitution, their marriage would remain binding until death or divorce rend them asunder.

Thanks for playing.

"Where MIB errs is by saying this gives the U.S. Supreme Court the ability to overturn the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Absolutely not." (Skiguy)

My point exactly! No matter what happens in the rest of the States... (barring a U.S Constitutional Amendment) - Marriage (I don't think the term 'Civil Unions' will be upheld - Mass. Sup. Ct. was clear in stressing "EQUAL") will be the way in Massachusetts.

That's good enough for me (I only live 1 State away - I'll move!)... and Massachusetts will be the safe haven. :cool:

I refuse however to become a Bosox fan!

[ November 19, 2003, 08:27 AM: Message edited by: ironjohn8 ]

I've got a few questions for everyone to think about?

Who issues MARRIAGE LISCENCES? The religeous institutions or government institutions?

Can you go to a judge and get "Hitched" as my mom has done on more than one occassion? I don't know. My guess would be "No", if the state does not recognize gay couples as a marriage.

Why is this the case? If there is now a separation of church and state, what is the reason for not being able to wed? It can't be "because God says so!" That tired excuse doesn't float now.

HMMMMMM.

I remember reading a law review article (true geek alert) a few years ago that suggested that states have never been required under the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution to recognize marriages performed in other states, but only to recognize divorces performed there. The logic was that states have always been free to impose their own requirements on the process (degrees of sanguinity, minimum age, etc.) and were not required to recognize different requirements other states chose. So, for example, Indiana is not required to recognize the marriage of two 14-year-old first cousins who run off to Kentucky and get married there (no insult intended). In Indiana, they are two unmarried 14-year-old cousins, regardless of their Kentucky marriage license. But failing to recognize another state's divorce would, in essence, create bigamists when the divorced parties later remarried. So Indiana had to recognize the divorce decree of the Nevada court issued after a woman went to live in Reno for 6 months, sued for divorce, and then moved back home to Indiana. Not recognizing her divorce would mean that she could be prosecuted for bigamy when she remarried. Made some sense to me at the time, but I don't hear anyone talking about this take on the full faith and credit argument. Any ideas why not?