WASHINGTON (ABP) — As far as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is concerned, a civil-unions bill would be a separate and unequal response to their earlier ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.
Their latest pronouncement was read publicly for the first time Feb. 4. It came in response to the state's Senate, which in December asked the court to render a clarifying opinion to an earlier ruling that ordered legislators to legalize same-sex marriages.
The court ruled Nov. 18 that the state may not use its regulatory power to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In the case, Goodridge vs. Department of Health, a lesbian couple and several others sued the state agency that regulates distribution of marriage licenses, saying the license law discriminated against them in a way that violated the state constitution.
In the contentious 4-3 decision, the justices ruled that the law “violates the basic premises of individual liberty and equality under law protected by the Massachusetts Constitution.”
In response, senators took up a bill that would have created unions providing the same “benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities” as marriage without using the same terminology. That solution was modeled after a similar act by Vermont legislators, who created civil unions in the state after that state's highest court said denying gay couples the right to marry violated Vermont's Constitution.
But in their latest ruling, the Massachusetts court said a Vermont-style solution wouldn't satisfy the Massachusetts Constitution.
“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 holding in Goodridge, by which we are bound, is that group classifications based on unsupportable distinctions, such as that embodied in the proposed bill, are invalid under the Massachusetts Constitution,” the majority justices wrote. “The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.”
In the November decision, the justices gave the legislature 180 days to respond to the ruling. Some at the time speculated that the court included that aspect of its ruling to give the legislature enough room to create a civil-unions-type solution. However, the most recent ruling makes clear that that was not the case.
The only option now left to Massachusetts legislators is adopting an amendment to the state constitution expressly outlawing same-sex marriage. A vote on such an amendment is scheduled for Feb. 11. However, the court's 180-day window closes on May 16, and an amendment would take at least two years and a series of legislative and popular votes before it would become part of the Massachusetts Constitution. This effectively ensures that same-sex couples will be able to obtain marriage licenses in Massachusetts during a period of at least several months.
President Bush was among several to express their disapproval of the news, which he called “deeply troubling” in a Feb. 4 statement.
Calling marriage a “sacred institution,” Bush said: “If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.”
However, the White House once again declined to say explicitly whether Bush would support a current effort in Congress to amend the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage nationwide. The Federal Marriage Amendment would ban gay marriage and deny marital benefits to same-sex couples — thus trumping state laws.
Gay-rights groups, meanwhile hailed the Massachusetts ruling. A spokesperson for a pro-gay-rights Christian group called it “an exciting day for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people and their allies.” Karen Weldin, director of operations for Soulforce, continued: “We have always believed that creating a separate second-class status for same-gender couples, such as civil unions or domestic partnerships, is not equality.”
-30-