Goodridge v. Department of Public Health

-! bgcolor="6699FF" | Case opinions
- |
-! bgcolor="6699FF" | Laws applied
-
Mass. Const. arts. 1, 6, 7, and 10, and Part II, c. 1, § 1, art. 4; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 207

"Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health", 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003), was a landmark state appellate court case dealing with same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

Ruling

In a 50-page, 4–3 ruling delivered on November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry." Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, writing for the majority, wrote that the state's constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals" and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens" and that the state had no "constitutionally adequate reason" for denying marriage to same-sex couples. On the legal aspect, instead of creating a new fundamental right to marry, or more accurately the right to choose to marry, the Court held that the State does not have a rational basis to deny same-sex couples from marriage on the ground of due process and equal protection.

The court gave the State Legislature 180 days to change the law to rectify the situation.

Political response

Republican Governor Mitt Romney responded by releasing a statement in support of a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts state constitution defining marriage as existing only between "one man and one woman" in order to overrule the court's decision. His statement said, "the people of Massachusetts should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of marriage." This message was taken up by VoteOnMarriage.org but their initiative failed.

The legislature engaged in a contentious debate about how and whether to propose an amendment to the state's constitution in response to "Goodridge". Some legislators wanted to create a system of civil unions, some wanted a ban on civil unions, some wanted a ban on same-sex marriage, and some wanted to do nothing (in other words, to let the court's decision stand). A joint session of the State legislature convened near the end of the 2003–04 session to discuss "Goodridge". After a dramatic, sometimes chaotic, multi-sided debate, a narrow majority of legislators approved a compromise constitutional amendment proposal, prohibiting same-sex marriage but simultaneously creating a system of civil unions for same-sex couples. Massachusetts law requires that a legislative amendment be approved by a joint session in 2 consecutive sessions, and the same proposal failed during the 2005–06 session [ [http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/09/15/after_vote_both_sides_in_debate_energized/ Boston Globe article about failure of legislative amendment] ] , and hence was not put before voters in the November 2006 election.

Status outside Massachusetts

Although marriages in the United States are typically valid across state lines, most states do not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries. Some legal scholars have argued that such marriages must be recognized under the "full faith and credit" clause of the federal Constitution, however, currently very few states recognize same-sex marriages from Massachusetts.

ubsequent separation of the Goodridges

Two of the original plaintiffs in the case, the couple that the case is named after and cited by, Julie and Hillary Goodridge, subsequently amicably separated in July 2006, according to their spokesperson.cite news
first= Michael
last= Levenson
title= After 2 years, same-sex marriage icons split up: Were plaintiffs in landmark case
date= July 21 2006
publisher= Boston Globe
url = http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/07/21/after_2_years_same_sex_marriage_icons_split_up/?page=full
work = Boston Globe
accessdate = 2007-06-08] cite news
first= Katie
last= Zezima
title= Same-Sex Marriage Plaintiffs Separate
date= July 22 2006
publisher=
url = http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30713FE3F5B0C718EDDAE0894DE404482
work = New York Times
pages = A11
accessdate = 2007-06-07] [Rosenberg, Eva. [http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=%7B155FB143-0999-4958-9230-16C45F5D89A1%7D&dist=rss TAXWATCH: Same-sex Couples Face Complex Questions When Doing Their Taxes] "Marketwatch/Dow Jones" February 9 2007. Retrieved March 16 2007. (See near the end of the article, in the section "Divorce disasters") ]

References

External links

* [http://www.state.ma.us/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/goodridge.html Unofficial synopsis and text of the decision] from the Massachusetts court system website.