Mass Supreme Judicial Court Affirms Ruling

[Boston Guy]

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed its November ruling today and stated that only full marriage is acceptable; civil unions will not meet the standard it has set.

 

For more information:

 

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/02/020404massCourt.htm

[Boston Guy]

Further to the above, the Court used some very strong, unequivocal language:

 

The constitutional difficulty of the proposed civil union bill is evident in its stated purpose to "preserv[e] the traditional, historic nature and meaning of the institution of civil marriage." Senate No. 2175, § 1. Preserving the institution of civil marriage is of course a legislative priority of the highest order, and one to which the Justices accord the General Court the greatest deference. We recognize the efforts of the Senate to draft a bill in conformity with the Goodridge opinion. Yet the bill, as we read it, does nothing to "preserve" the civil marriage law, only its constitutional infirmity. This is not a matter of social policy but of constitutional interpretation. As the court concluded in Goodridge, the traditional, historic nature and meaning of civil marriage in Massachusetts is as a wholly secular and dynamic legal institution, the governmental aim of which is to encourage stable adult relationships for the good of the individual and of the community, especially its children. The very nature and purpose of civil marriage, the court concluded, renders unconstitutional any attempt to ban all same-sex couples, as same-sex couples, from entering into civil marriage.

 

The same defects of rationality evident in the marriage ban considered in Goodridge are evident in, if not exaggerated by, Senate No. 2175. Segregating same-sex unions from opposite-sex unions cannot possibly be held rationally to advance or "preserve" what we stated in Goodridge were the Commonwealth's legitimate interests in procreation, child rearing, and the conservation of resources. See Goodridge, supra at 341. Because the proposed law by its express terms forbids same-sex couples entry into civil marriage, it continues to relegate same-sex couples to a different status. The holding in Goodridge, by which we are bound, is that group classifications based on unsupportable distinctions, such as that embodied in the proposed bill, are invalid under the Massachusetts Constitution. The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.3

 

In Goodridge, the court acknowledged, as we do here, that "[m]any people hold deep-seated religious, moral, and ethical convictions that marriage should be limited to the union of one man and one woman, and that homosexual conduct is immoral. Many hold equally strong religious, moral, and ethical convictions that same-sex couples are entitled to be married, and that homosexual persons should be treated no differently than their heterosexual neighbors." Id. at 312. The court stated then, and we reaffirm, that the State may not interfere with these convictions, or with the decision of any religion to refuse to perform religious marriages of same-sex couples. Id. at 337-338 n.29. These matters of belief and conviction are properly outside the reach of judicial review or government interference. But neither may the government, under the guise of protecting "traditional" values, even if they be the traditional values of the majority, enshrine in law an invidious discrimination that our Constitution, "as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach," forbids. Id. at 312.

 

The bill's absolute prohibition of the use of the word "marriage" by "spouses" who are the same sex is more than semantic. 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 denomination of this difference by the separate opinion of Justice Sosman (separate opinion) as merely a "squabble over the name to be used" so clearly misses the point that further discussion appears to be useless.

 

If, as the separate opinion posits, the proponents of the bill believe that no message is conveyed by eschewing the word "marriage" and replacing it with "civil union" for same-sex "spouses," we doubt that the attempt to circumvent the court's decision in Goodridge would be so purposeful. 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 bill would have the effect of maintaining and fostering a stigma of exclusion that the Constitution prohibits. It would deny to same-sex "spouses" only a status that is specially recognized in society and has significant social and other advantages. The Massachusetts Constitution, as was explained in the Goodridge opinion, does not permit such invidious discrimination, no matter how well intentioned.

 

The separate opinion maintains that, because same-sex civil marriage is not recognized under Federal law and the law of many States, there is a rational basis for the Commonwealth to distinguish same-sex from opposite-sex "spouses." Post at . There is nothing in the bill, including its careful and comprehensive findings (see Senate No. 2175, § 1), to suggest that the rationale for the bill's distinct nomenclature was chosen out of deference to other jurisdictions. This is but a post hoc, imaginative theory created in the separate opinion to justify different treatment for a discrete class. Even if the different term were used for the reason the separate opinion posits, and not in order to label the unions of same-sex couples as less worthy than those of opposite sex couples, we would remain unpersuaded. "Our concern," as the court stated in Goodridge, "is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach."

 

For the full text of the opinion:

 

http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/sjc_020404/

[Rick Munroe]

Bush's heartwarming statement of compassionate conservatism: "Today's ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

[trilingual]

The ruling could hardly be more crystal clear in its discussion of the issues, and Bush (much as I would like to believe it) isn't a complete idiot. He must understand a concept as simple as the distinction between civil and religious marriage, in which case his statement is deliberately duplicitous and evil, intended to do nothing but confuse people and obfuscate the truth. He claims to be a religious person, so I'm confident that when his time comes, he'll spend eternity in hell for this and his other egregious sins of commission. Maybe Bush's hell will consist of being the fawning houseboy for all eternity to some FAAHHbulous gay couple! }(

[Guest]

I have a greater interest in seeing gay marriage as the law of the land than anyone else on this message board, since my foreign partner will probably be deported if he doesn't win his asylum case. Nevertheless, I think it's the wrong time to be pushing the marriage issue. The American public is overwhelmingly against gay marriage. There are probably enough votes in Congress and the state legislatures to pass a Constitutional ammendment banning gay marriages. If that happens, I can't imagine that the ammendment would be repealed in this century (certainly not in our lifetimes). And then we'll be really fucked.

I would rather get the public used to the idea more gradually. I wish we would divert more resources to having Congress pass the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, which would allow gay lovers to sponsor their partners for immigration (Bush has actually said he would sign it if Congress passed it!). It would then be easier to take the next step in ten or twenty years. We should consider not just our needs, but the needs of future gay generations.

Clinton knew how to count. He realized that there were enough votes in Congress to override his veto if he tried to let gays serve openly in the military, so he let gays serve in a closeted manner. It won't be too long before gays will be allowed to serve openly in the US military (even Britain relented, the last civilized country to do so).

Let's not ignore simple arithmetic. If we force a Constitutional ammendment, we will have painted ourselves into a corner we won't get out of during our lifetimes.

[Guest alanm]

I am not sure that there are enough votes in the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment. However, I agree that the time is bad for anyone who wants to get rid of Bush. There is already a negative feeling against New England liberals in the country. Bush has $100

million in the bank and will use that money to go after John Kerry on this issue. It does not matter to the GOP that Kerry is against gay marriage. This is a battle that would have been better to fight just

after the election in November. (It also does not help that the Democratic convention is in Boston.)