|
|
|
|
Massachusetts' Supreme Court Reaffirms Pro-Marriage Ruling Banning Marriage and Civil Unions Violates State Constitution Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders Praise the Opinion |
|
"The Court looked at this issue as a matter of principle, not of politics," said Bonauto. "While we understand that some find civil unions to be a good compromise in this debate, the fact is it does not equal marriage and does not provide the same protections and rights that come with marriage." The Supreme Judicial Court's Opinion responds to the state Senate's request of December 12, 2003, for an advisory opinion clarifying whether a new measure banning marriage for same-sex couples but allowing them to join in civil unions would pass muster under the state Constitution. The proposed civil union law under Senate Bill 2175 would allow couples joined in civil union all of the state-law based rights applicable to spouses, but would withhold the name and the additional legal and social protections of marriage. The Supreme Judicial Court accepted briefs from all interested parties to guide its decision. Neither the Governor, Attorney General, nor the House or Senate submitted a brief. Those who did file included a number of organizations fervently opposed to the Supreme Judicial Court's original decision. The Supreme Judicial Court also heard from supporters of their decision, including:
"At this point," said Bonauto, "between the Goodridge case and this Opinion, the Supreme Judicial Court has received and reviewed 45 legal briefs across the spectrum on this question. The Supreme Judicial Court clearly believes the word and legal institution are meaningful protections for people and their families because everyone knows that a marriage is the ultimate expression of love and commitment and only marriage bestows the full rights these families deserve." Lambda Legal, one of the many organizations filing friend-of-the-court briefs issued the following statement: "Lesbian and gay people are not being treated equally as long as we are denied full marriage equality, and Massachusetts' highest court made that clear again today. "Within a few months, same-sex couples in Massachusetts will begin getting married. They will be able to visit their spouses in the hospital, make decisions about each other's health care and be fully recognized as parents of their children. "Anti-gay groups may proceed ahead in efforts to amend the state's Constitution to carve out an exception to the time-honored guarantee of equality. As that debate moves forward, people will see same-sex couples who are legally married -- and they will see that in seeking to protect their families, these married couples pose no threat to society. "We are grateful that, in requesting this clarification, the Massachusetts Senate recognized that courts are charged with interpreting constitutions and laws. The Massachusetts high court is not a political arena. Our nation's founders created a system for legislatures and elected officials to create laws and for courts to ensure that these laws are fair and reflect basic principles of fairness. "Public opinion on marriage equality is evolving every day, but our courts must always stay above politics and be an arena that any group can turn to when its constitutional rights are not being respected. This is not just a good day for gay people in Massachusetts -- it's an important moment for everyone in Massachusetts and elsewhere who believes in basic fairness." |
Massachusetts gay marriage plantiffs David Wilson and Robert Compton