|
|
|
|
Many Challenges Remain in Seeing the Decision Implemented Vicious & Demonizing Anti-Gay Assault Expected from Bigots |
|
"The court," he observes, "did not issue a ruling allowing marriages to occur. They sent the case back to the Massachusetts state legislature with mandate for them to provide a solution to the matter in 180 days." What is deemed a victory, says Woods, is the fact that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that the civil right to same-sex marriage exists, but the same ruling does not provide a means of providing that right. "This is a mirror decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court through two rulings in 1993 that we have the rights," Woods continues, "but then delayed through a trial…putting issuing licenses on hold." Implicit in Woods' commentary is Hawaii's warning about Massachusetts' victory. The issuance of licenses was put on hold in Hawaii for over five years, he says, thus allowing a growing number of opponents to force a proposal for a constitutional amendment through four legislatures followed by a popular vote which then prevented any issuance of licenses. The New Jersey Supreme Court, Woods reminds those who are marriage-minded, is now at the same point of "ruling on the very same issues." Matt Foreman, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) Executive Director, hailing the Massachusetts decision as a "critical step in the right direction, nevertheless notes that: "At the same time, we now face many challenges in seeing the decision implemented. While recognizing that denying same sex couples equal rights to enter into civil marriage violates the state constitution, the court stopped short of directly ordering the logical remedy: the immediate right to civil marriage. Instead, the court stayed its decision for 180 days to 'permit the (state) legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this decision.' "Our community and the people of Massachusetts now face a bruising political struggle. We have to make sure that the 'appropriate action' taken by the state legislature is to ensure the freedom to marry for all its citizens, not some attempt to create some kind of separate and fundamentally unequal system. We've learned from painful experience that court victories are incomplete - and sometimes hollow - until they are translated into statute and fairly implemented." The NGLTF director says that he expects a "vicious, demonizing, and dehumanizing assault that is likely to be undertaken by anti-gay extremists," and he promises that "The Task Force will also be fighting on a national level to confront the same assault." He continues: "As confirmed by the Washington Post on October 27, 'Republican lawmakers and conservative activists are making plans to turn gay marriage into a major issue in next year's elections, with some Christian groups saying that banning same-sex unions is a higher immediate priority for them than restricting abortion.' "First and foremost, everyone in the community, no matter where he or she is on marriage - for, against, don't know or don't care - must unite to fight the backlash. Second, because we cannot win this by ourselves, each of us must speak openly and directly to our families, friends, neighbors and co-workers. As the national atmosphere becomes poisoned with endless lies, defamations and distortions, each of us needs to say to those in our lives, 'They are talking about me and I need you to take a stand for me.' It will take all of us working together, and more, to prevail." Bitter Fight Anticipated in Massachusetts Legislature Right Wing Expected to Funnel $ Millions to its Cause
"As has been the case in other states, the political and religious right from across the nation are also expected to funnel millions of dollars to prevent the legislature from implementing equal rights for same-sex couples, as directed by the court. In California in 2000 for example, right-wing Christian organizations funneled millions of dollars to support the successful campaign to preclude the recognition of marriages between persons of the same sex. "More recently, the religious right and the political right have joined forces in an unprecedented coordinated campaign to oppose same-sex marriage and the legal recognition of any relationship outside of "one man - one woman" marriage, such as domestic partnerships and civil unions. A prime goal of this effort is amending the U.S. Constitution to permanently define marriage in this country as being between one man and one woman and to prohibit any court from interpreting any law or state constitution to extend any benefits associated with marriage to same-sex couples. "Rev. Jerry Falwell recently claimed that the coordinated efforts had resulted in one million signatures on petitions in support of the constitutional amendment. (At last count, the amendment had 96 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives. The proposed amendment must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the states.)" The Massachusetts case, Goodridge, et al v. Department of Public Health, centered on seven plaintiff couples who sought the right to civil marriage under the Massachusetts Constitution. The suit argued that the right to marry the person of one's choice is protected under the state constitution, and further, that the state cannot justify excluding gay and lesbian couples and their families from the institution of marriage and the hundreds of protections it provides. The seven plaintiff couples have been in committed relationships between six and 32 years. Four of the couples are raising children. Each couple was denied a marriage license by local officials, which led to the filing of the suit in April, 2001. |
Plantiffs in the Massachusetts gay and lesbian marriage case, Julie and Hillary Goodridge 
Plantiffs David Wilson and Robert Compton