Massachusetts Marriage Decision Question & Answers
Handing down the first-of-its-kind ruling in the United States on Nov. 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same- and opposite-sex couples must be given equal marriage rights under the state constitution the oldest living Constitution in the world. Simply put, the state constitution mandates that gay and lesbian couples in long-term, committed relationships are entitled to equal protections under the law, which includes the right to marriage and the hundreds of basic protections and responsibilities that bestows. This document answers questions about the Court's ruling and includes quotes from the decision, Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health.
Did the plaintiffs in Goodridge win the right to marriage?
Yes. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that excluding same-sex couples from marriage violates the Massachusetts Constitution. In 180 days during which time the Legislature may take any steps necessary to bring the state law into line with its ruling same-sex couples should be able to apply for a Massachusetts marriage license under the same rules that apply to opposite-sex couples.
In particular, the Court concluded that:
- The state "has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples." (emphasis added)
- Without the right to marry, or the right to choose to marry, one is "excluded from the full range of human experience and denied full protection of the laws."
- "Recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage, any more than recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of a different race devalues the marriage of a person who marries someone of her own race."
- Limiting the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the basic premises of individual liberty and equality under law protected by the Massachusetts Constitution."
- "The marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason."
Isn't marriage only between a man and a woman?
No. Massachusetts; the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia, Canada; and the nations of Belgium and the Netherlands have all ruled that marriage is not the exclusive right of opposite-sex couples. Furthermore, there is a significant difference between marriage a licensing system set up and administered by the State that affords hundreds of important protections under law and religious marriage.
This ruling has nothing to do with religion it has to do with the legal rights and protections provided by the government to people in long-term, committed relationships. Government cannot and should not interfere with religion or impose one religion's beliefs on everybody else. Our federal constitution already protects the free exercise of religion. Churches do not have to perform ceremonies or recognize relationships for gay couples or anybody else.
In particular, the Court said:
- "Simply put, the government creates civil marriage. In Massachusetts, civil marriage is, and since pre-Colonial days has been, precisely what its name implies: a wholly secular institution. No religious ceremony has ever been required to validate a Massachusetts marriage."
Could the Legislature enact a civil union law for same-sex couples instead of marriage, like in Vermont?
No, the Legislature could not replace marriage equality with a civil union law. The Court explicitly stated that in order for the state's marriage licensing law to comply with the Massachusetts Constitution it must be open to same-sex couples.
The Court explained that marriage itself must be available to couples regardless of their sexual orientation:
- "[E]xtending civil marriage to same-sex couples reinforces the importance of marriage to individuals and communities."
- "We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
- It further explained that the question of the constitutionality of the marriage law is for the courts, not the Legislature, to decide:
- "The Massachusetts Constitution requires that legislation meet certain criteria and not extend beyond certain limits. It is the function of courts to determine whether these criteria are met and whether these limits are exceeded. In most instances, these limits are defined by whether a rational basis exists to conclude that legislation will bring about a rational result. The Legislature in the first instance, and the courts in the last instance, must ascertain whether such a rational basis exists."
Can the Legislature undo this decision by passing a law?
No. The Legislature does not have the power to pass a law that would violate the Massachusetts Constitution, or undo a decision of the state high court interpreting the state constitution.
Does the Legislature have to act in order for this decision to take effect?
No. The Supreme Judicial Court stayed the judgment for 180 days so that the Legislature can take any steps that it deems necessary to effectuate the decision. For instance, the Legislature could facilitate implementing this decision by changing applications for marriage licenses to reflect the ruling, educate town clerks on how to respond to requests by same-sex couples for marriage licenses or take any other steps to insure that the constitutional requirement of civil marriage equality is achieved.
The Court approved of the remedy granted by the Ontario Court of Appeals in June, 2003which was full marriage, not civil unions.
- Ontario, like Massachusetts, had adopted a so-called "common law" definition of marriage, which the court then altered to fit with the constitutional requirement that it treat lesbian and gay couples equal to opposite-sex couples.
- "We concur with this remedy, which is entirely consonant with established principles of jurisprudence empowering a court to refine a common-law principle in light of evolving constitutional standards."
Does this mean that the Court threw out Massachusetts' marriage law altogether?
No. The Court noted that the plaintiffs only challenged the exclusion against same-sex couples marrying; they did not challenge any of the other aspects of Massachusetts marriage law. It simply concluded that the concept of "civil marriage" be construed differently from now on.
The court held that:
- Civil marriage is now construed "to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others."
- "[N]o one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief. Eliminating civil marriage would be wholly inconsistent with the Legislature's deep commitment to fostering stable families and would dismantle a vital organizing principle of our society."
What if Massachusetts amends its state constitution to state that marriage is only between a man and a woman?
Under Massachusetts law, amending the constitution is a lengthy process, taking at least three years. To amend the state constitution, the Legislature would have to pass the amendment in two consecutive legislative sessions and then the amendment would have to be approved by Massachusetts voters. Following the state's process, the earliest that voters could consider a constitutional amendment would be 2006.
- The Massachusetts Legislature had the opportunity, while the Goodridge case was pending, to take the issue of marriage equality into its own hands by considering an amendment to that state's constitution. Instead, the Legislature explicitly chose to leave the matter to the Supreme Judicial Court for the time being. When the Court decided the Goodridge case, it did so with an explicit mandate from the elected representatives of the people of Massachusetts.
- Recent polls show that an overwhelming majority of Massachusetts voters support marriage equality for same-sex couples 59 percent favor marriage for same-sex couples, and an even more impressive 77 percent either favor marriage equality or would not oppose a judicial or legislative decision extending marriage to same-sex couples. Conversely, Massachusetts voters oppose amending the constitution to exclude same-sex couples by a margin of three to one.
What does this mean for same-sex couples who want to marry but live outside of Massachusetts?
No state, including Massachusetts, has a residency requirement for marriage. But Massachusetts does have several antiquated and largely untested provisions of state law that purport to prevent non-residents from marrying in the state if they are prohibited from marrying in their home state.
Forty states have so-called "Defense of Marriage" acts (DOMAs) that deny same-sex couples access to marriage, which opponents of same-sex marriage may try to use to deny marriage licenses to non-resident couples -- although this argument may not apply to residents of the remaining 9 states without explicitly discriminatory marriage laws. While there are strong legal arguments that out-of-state couples must be allowed to marry in Massachusetts, these laws regarding non-residents may present real obstacles.
Couples from outside Massachusetts are advised to wait to see how this issue develops before committing to marriage plans in that state. Any same-sex couple wishing to secure a marriage should also first consult with a lawyer familiar with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender families.
Will same-sex couples who are married in Massachusetts be recognized as married couples under federal law?
By operation of law, all married couples should be extended the more than 1,000 federal protections and responsibilities administered at the federal level. These rights include the application of federal inheritance laws, Social Security benefits, the right to unpaid leave to care for a family member, the ability to file joint tax return, and the like. However, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 purports to discriminate against same-sex married couples and deny them these protections. Because no state has recognized marriage for same-sex couples in the past, this law has not been challenged in court.
Will the U.S. Constitution be amended to stop gay marriage?
The American people overwhelmingly disagree with amending our Constitution a cherished document written to protect and ensure equal treatment for all Americans for such a discriminatory purpose. According to a September 2003 ABCNews Poll, only 20 percent of Americans favor a constitutional ban on marriages for same-sex couples; 33 percent oppose such marriages but wouldn't amend the Constitution; and 37 percent would make them legal.
However, some politicians will likely attempt to use this as a wedge issue in the upcoming elections. An anti-gay amendment would destroy our constitutional tradition of increasing equality by amending the Constitution to treat one group of Americans different from others. Our nation has never amended the Constitution to single out a group of people for discrimination.
The amendment proposed in Congress goes way beyond defining marriage it is a harsh, discriminatory amendment that would prevent gay and lesbian couples who have made life-long commitments to each other from having any basic rights and protections under the law, such as the right to visit each other in the hospital.
Last updated March 2, 2004