kitty
02-04-2004, 12:20 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage/index.html
Massachusetts court upholds same-sex marriage
(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court reiterated Wednesday that only full marriage rights for gay couples, not civil unions, would be constitutional.
The ruling sets the stage for Massachusetts to likely become the first state in the nation to allow same-sex marriages.
The advisory opinion released Wednesday by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts was in response to a request from the state Senate about whether allowing gays to join in civil unions would be sufficient.
In its decision, the court rejected using civil unions as a remedy, "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 history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."
Wednesday's ruling comes a week before a constitutional convention will be held by state lawmakers to consider an amendment legally defining marriage as a union between men and women. That amendment would have to be ratified by both houses of the Legislature in two successive legislative sessions and then be ratified by the voters.
The earliest voters could consider a constitutional amendment would be November of 2006. The Massachusetts high court ruling from last November and reiterated on Wednesday will become state law in mid-May, regardless of what the constitutional convention decides.
"The people of Massachusetts should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of marriage," said Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in a written statement on Wednesday's opinion. "This issue is too important to leave to a one-vote majority of the SJC."
In November, the Massachusetts high court cleared the way for lesbian and gay couples in the state to marry, ruling 4-3 that commonwealth attorneys "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny them the right. The November 18 ruling gave the Legislature six months to rewrite the state law to conform to the ruling.
The state Senate then asked the court whether the commonwealth could satisfy its constitutional concerns by granting civil unions to gays and lesbians, but forbidding them from obtaining civil marriage licenses.
Civil unions grants couples most of the rights of state civil marriages, except the name, but provide none of the federal benefits of marriage, such as Social Security benefits.
In 1999, Vermont lawmakers created the institution of civil unions. Several other states have granted limited marriage benefits to gays but called them domestic partnerships. Thirty-seven states have passed laws forbidding the recognition of gay marriages.
The Massachusetts' court's November ruling, as well as the granting of marriages to gay couples in Canada, set off a debate in the United States and among the Democratic presidential candidates.
President Bush has suggested he would try to amend the U.S. Constitution to prohibit gay marriages.
Front-runner Sen. John Kerry is from Massachusetts and supports civil unions, but not gay marriage. Howard Dean was Vermont's governor when the civil union law passed.
Last year, California's State Assembly passed a domestic partnership law to provide similar benefits, but it stops short of allowing gays to marry. Several other states have granted limited marriage benefits to gays but called them domestic partnerships. Thirty-seven states have passed laws forbidding the recognition of gay marriages.
Massachusetts court upholds same-sex marriage
(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court reiterated Wednesday that only full marriage rights for gay couples, not civil unions, would be constitutional.
The ruling sets the stage for Massachusetts to likely become the first state in the nation to allow same-sex marriages.
The advisory opinion released Wednesday by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts was in response to a request from the state Senate about whether allowing gays to join in civil unions would be sufficient.
In its decision, the court rejected using civil unions as a remedy, "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 history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."
Wednesday's ruling comes a week before a constitutional convention will be held by state lawmakers to consider an amendment legally defining marriage as a union between men and women. That amendment would have to be ratified by both houses of the Legislature in two successive legislative sessions and then be ratified by the voters.
The earliest voters could consider a constitutional amendment would be November of 2006. The Massachusetts high court ruling from last November and reiterated on Wednesday will become state law in mid-May, regardless of what the constitutional convention decides.
"The people of Massachusetts should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of marriage," said Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in a written statement on Wednesday's opinion. "This issue is too important to leave to a one-vote majority of the SJC."
In November, the Massachusetts high court cleared the way for lesbian and gay couples in the state to marry, ruling 4-3 that commonwealth attorneys "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny them the right. The November 18 ruling gave the Legislature six months to rewrite the state law to conform to the ruling.
The state Senate then asked the court whether the commonwealth could satisfy its constitutional concerns by granting civil unions to gays and lesbians, but forbidding them from obtaining civil marriage licenses.
Civil unions grants couples most of the rights of state civil marriages, except the name, but provide none of the federal benefits of marriage, such as Social Security benefits.
In 1999, Vermont lawmakers created the institution of civil unions. Several other states have granted limited marriage benefits to gays but called them domestic partnerships. Thirty-seven states have passed laws forbidding the recognition of gay marriages.
The Massachusetts' court's November ruling, as well as the granting of marriages to gay couples in Canada, set off a debate in the United States and among the Democratic presidential candidates.
President Bush has suggested he would try to amend the U.S. Constitution to prohibit gay marriages.
Front-runner Sen. John Kerry is from Massachusetts and supports civil unions, but not gay marriage. Howard Dean was Vermont's governor when the civil union law passed.
Last year, California's State Assembly passed a domestic partnership law to provide similar benefits, but it stops short of allowing gays to marry. Several other states have granted limited marriage benefits to gays but called them domestic partnerships. Thirty-seven states have passed laws forbidding the recognition of gay marriages.