State's Highest Court Says 'Yes' To Gay Marriage

BOSTON -- Massachusetts highest court ruled Tuesday that it is illegal under the state's constitution to ban gay marriages, but left it up to the state Legislature to decide how the state will amend its Constitution to legalize gay marriages or unions.

Video

Plaintiffs React To Court's Decision

The decision was made public following months of debate after seven gay couples were denied marriage licenses in their communities. They then sued the state Department of Public Health. A lower court tossed the lawsuit out and the couples then took it to the Supreme Judicial Court.

The SJC ruled in a 4-3 decision that the Legislature now has 180 days to act on the state's Constitution.

"The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples," Supreme Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote for the majority.

The court decided that it is fundamentally unfair under Massachusetts law to prevent gay couples from being allowed to marry.

"Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law," it stated.

The justices recognized in their opinion that marriage has always been recognized under the law to be a union of a man and a woman, but said they were deciding whether that definition was legal under commonwealth law.

"We have recognized the long-standing statutory understanding, derived from the common law, that "marriage" means the lawful union of a woman and a man. But that history cannot and does not foreclose the constitutional question," the SJC decision said. It went on to say that marriage, in itself, is created by governments and is a "secular institution."

"No religious ceremony has ever been required to validate a Massachusetts marriage," the court said.

The court went on to say that it's up to the Legislature to decide whether same sex couples can legally marry in the state.

"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 ... Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."

Gov. Mitt Romney, who opposes gay marriage, offered swift reaction. He said he will do everything he can to prevent gay marriages in the state, saying he disagreed with the SJC decision and will put forth an amendment to limit the legal definition of marriage in the state.

"Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman and the exact equivalent to marriage is also reserved to a man and a woman. Over the next several months I'll work together with Legislative leadership and other legislators and community leaders to decide what kind of statute we can fashion which is consistent with the law. We obviously have to follow the law as provided by the Supreme Judicial Court, even if we don't agree with it, we're going to follow it in terms of preparing legislation and we'll have legislation which conforms to the law. But we will, at the same time, initiate a constitutional amendment process, and that constitutional amendment process will be consistent with what I think the feelings are of the people of the commonwealth, and of course, the entire sweep of recorded history," said Romney.

But legal experts questioned whether the Legislature could act on the decision in 180 days.

"It's going to take a heck of a lot longer than six months to amend the Constitution. It's a long, drawn out process in this particular state. You have to have a joint session of the Legislature, it's got to be on the ballot, it's got to go to the people, as far as a state Constitutional amendment is concerned," Retired Judge Robert Barton told NewsCenter 5.

Barton said he does not think the Legislature can do anything, at this point, to outlaw gay marriage.

"The Supreme Judicial Court, whether you agree or disagree, has turned marriage on its head," said Barton, citing how the judges' opinon stated that marriage is not for procreation. "Whether it's 180 days or one day, there's nothing they can do. The only thing possible to reverse this is a constitutional amendment, which could not be effective at its earliest, until the year 2006."

"It's loud, it's clear and it's emphatic. Marriage is for two people, no matter what the sex," Barton said.

Earlier, however, others said Massachusetts may end up going the way of Vermont.

"This is sounding an awful lot like Vermont," said David Yas of Lawyer's Weekly. "The SJC stopped short of giving a blanket rights of all gay couples to marry and instead sending it to the Legislature for what will ultimately be some sort of compromise. In Vermont, this is more or less what happened."

Yas predicted Massachusetts could ultimately end up with a civil union law for gays, similar to what Vermont approved. He said regardless of what the Bay State decides regarding civil unions or marriages, it doesn't mean other state's will recognize those rights. Barton, however, said if Massachusetts confers the rights of civil marriages on gays, other states will be forced to accept them as legal unions.

"Basically what happened today is that our State Supreme Court said it's unconstitutional to deny the right of civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples," said Gretchen Van Ness, the immediate past president of the Women's Bar Association of Massachusetts.

"This is enormously significant. This is the first time that a state court has recognized the rights of gay and lesbian people to be married, that their relationships are on a par, and they are entitled to the same dignity and civil rights, the legal safety net that straight and different sex couples have when they marry. So this is an enormously important statement that ends discrimination and says that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in our community are just like everybody else and should be treated like everybody else ... it couldn't be more important," Van Ness said.

The lead attorney for the couples who brought the suit called the court's ruling a huge win.

"What the court decision says is that excluding gay and lesbian couples from civil, legal, governmental marriage, the same marriage everybody else has, is unconstitutional," said Mary Bonauto. "In six months, people should be able to go to their city and town halls and request the same forms and enter into a civil ceremony and marry the person they've been with for the past two or three decades," she said.

Bonauto said civil unions are not the same as civil marriages and are not recognized across state lines, and she said that more limited institution, created just for gay people, would not be a satisfactory alternative to the gay community.

Opponents of gay marriage, however, hailed a the decision as serious mistake and called for its reversal.

"Today's radical decision ... must be reversed. The court defies reason by rejecting an understanding of marriage tested over thousands of years and accepted nearly everywhere as the key to a stable society," said the Massachusetts Catholic Conference.

"Marriage as the union between a man and a woman has served the common good by providing children with both a mother and a father, by bringing a man and woman together according to the moral order. After today's decision, marriage loses its distinctive social value. As devastating as the decision is, it won't end the debate," said the conference in a prepared statement.

"This is another case of radical, judicial activism, where four political appointees in black robes have decided that they are smarter than thousands of years of civilization. The union of a man and a woman, a male and a female, is the biological basis of the institution of marriage. You can't just waive that biological reality away with a passage of an opinion," said Evelyn Reilly of the Massachusetts Family Institute.

The justices who voted for gay marriages included Marshall, Roderick Ireland, John Greaney and Judith Cowin. The dissenting justices included Francis Spina, Martha Sosman and Robert Cordy.