Massachusetts high court rules ban on homosexual marriage unconstitutional

BOSTON — Massachusetts’ highest court, in a split decision, ruled Nov. 18 that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and gave lawmakers 180 days to come up with a solution that would allow homosexual couples to marry. The vote was 4-3.

“Whether and whom to marry, how to express sexual intimacy, and whether and how to establish a family—these are among the most basic of every individual’s liberty and due process rights,” the majority opinion said. “And central to personal freedom and security is the assurance that the laws will apply equally to persons in similar situations.”

Republican Gov. Mitt Romey immediately criticized the ruling and vowed to push for a state constitutional amendment to block homosexual marriage.

“Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman,” Romey told reporters. “I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that makes that expressly clear. Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman

The Massachusetts case began in 2001, when seven homosexual couples went to their city and town halls to obtain marriage licenses. All were denied and subsequently sued the state Department of Public Health, which administers the state’s marriage laws.

A judge threw out the case in 2002, ruling that nothing in state law gives homosexual couples the right to marry. The couples appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusettes.

The high court ruled in favor of the couples Nov. 18, but did not issue marriage licenses to them, leaving the details to the Legislature.

The issue may meet hostile opposition in the Massachusetts Legislature, which has been considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Because the court’s ruling was based on the state’s Constitution, the ruling would be rendered null by an amendment.

Courts in Hawaii, Alaska and Vermont have previously ruled that the states did not have a right to deny marriage to homosexual couples. The ruling stands in Vermont where homosexual couples can legally form “civil unions.” But the decisions in Hawaii and Alaska were followed by the adoption of constitutional amendments limiting marriage to couples of the opposite sex.

Romey told NBC’s “Today” show that he hopes Massachusetts will follow the example of those two states and pass an amendment to “preserve the institution of marriage.”

An amendment could go before Massachusetts voters by 2006 if it wins approval by the end of the 2003-2004 legislative session. A joint session of the House and Senate, which rejected the amendment last year, is scheduled to meet to debate the measure in February, according to the Associated Press.

President George W. Bush made a brief statement after the court’s ruling, denouncing the decision.

“Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman,” the president said. “Today’s decision of the Massachusetts Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.”

Just what Bush will do to defend marriage remains unclear. The U.S. House is currently considering a constitutional ban on homosexual marriage, but the president recently said he thinks a constitutional amendment is not yet necessary.

Some pro-family groups disagree, saying an amendment protecting marriage is necessary—and that it is necessary now. “If we do not amend the Massachusetts State Constitution so that it explicitly protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and if we do not amend the U.S. Constitution with a federal marriage amendment that will protect marriage on the federal level, we will lose marriage in this nation,” a spokesman for the Family Research Council said.

Peter Sprigg, director of the Center for Marriage and Family Studies at FRC, explained in an online discussion on the day of the ruling how he thinks the country could “lose marriage.”

“If one of the essential characteristics of marriage—that it is an institution which unites male and female—is deleted form the law, then the institution will cease to (be) marriage in any meaningful sense.”

EP News
Published by Keener Communications Group, December 2003

Published by Keener Communications Group, March 2007