Mass. Supreme Court Rules - Gay Couples have the Right to Marry

FoxNews | 11-18-03 | FoxNews

[jwalsh07]

From the decision:

"The court rejected the Commonwealth's claim that the primary purpose of marriage was procreation. Rather, the history of the marriage laws in the Commonwealth demonstrates that "it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of marriage."

According to this line of reasoning from the MSC, nobbody should be proscribed from marrying and bigmay laws are rendered unconstitutional in Massachustetts.

The scope of this opinion goes beyong rational into lala land.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

Now I don't see a huge lobby in this country trying to reestablish plural marriage.

There are lobbies in certain states that wish to reestablish plural marriages. As long as these are "loving and committed" relationships amongst people who keep neat neighborhoods peppered with hip coffee shops, I can assume that this is all right with you?

[gridlock]

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.

Sorry, but the Massachusetts Supreme Court is exactly right on this one. There is no constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same sex couples.

That's the problem with governmental recognition of civil marriage.

Get government out of the marriage business, before it is too late! This cornerstone of society is strong enough to survive without governmental protection.

Government can only destroy marriage. Protection of marriage from government is the only way to save it.

[af_vet_1981]

According to the post-decision analysis on Fox, this ruling would not apply to the 30 states who have passed a "Defense of Marriage" law prior to today's MA decision. They would not have to recognize MA homosexual marriage. So those of you in the other 19 states should have been paying attention when Vermont made the first move on this with their "civil unions."

Hogwash, all they need is complicit judges in those other states or the supreme court. You trust the lawyers and judges to defend normalcy ?

You say the world is getting rid of her demons I say "Baby what have you been smoking ?"

[Remole]

You may want to include the legal stipulation in Catholic Church Law that a marriage, to be sacramental, must also be consumated. No consumation, automatic annulment.

[Chad Fairbanks]

If they throw rice after a marriage ceremony symbolizing fertility, what would they throw after a gay marriage?

Chocolate Chips...

[CWW]

I would like to revise my previosu comments regarding the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

I had forgotten that Congress had passed the Federal Defense of Marriage Act which provides that States do not have to recognize gay marriages allowed by other states. At least that's one good thing. Of course, that might put this puppy right back in the Supreme Court's lap.

[mel]

I don't know about that I work in a county hospital in Tennessee, we absolutely don't do abortions here in the hospital.

[Zack Nguyen]

I don't think the govt can require a church to marry anyone.

Not yet...

[PISANO]

History has proven that when morality declines, apathy increases

...from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again into bondage.

-Alexander Tyler, 1750

It is JUST A MATTER OF TIME!!

[af_vet_1981]

Government can only destroy marriage. Protection of marriage from government is the only way to save it.

Allow me.

Dysfunctional liberal government can only destroy marriage and society. Protection of marriage and society from Dysfunctional liberal government is the only way to save it.

[Lael]

I guarantee you. This thing is blown wide open.

LOL!!

[cajungirl]

What is your question? You sort of frontloaded it with mysterious remarks so the question was missed. I by the way think if people get down to the license bureau, are over the age of consent and can fill out the paperwork and have no other marriages which are extant and legal, can get married under the law. Whether they have sex eight times a day or none at all is really not my business nor is it the state's business unless one ties up ones mate and rapes them or beats them or whatever. Then the state can get involved. If they chose to lie in front of the tv eating high fat food, smoking cigarets and polishing their guns while reading right wing literature, well I don't care. And if they flit around worshipping satan I don't care. The state belongs out of marriage other than in setting the legal requirements, registering marriage and they must do this for social security and legal reasons.

[Remole]

Wow, I didn't see that phrase as I skimmed the decision. We have entered the world of Topsy-Turvydom.

[jwalsh07]

  Term  

NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted on this Website are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. This preliminary material will be removed from the Website once the advance sheets of the Official Reports are published. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, Room 1407, Boston, MA 02108; (617) 557-1030; clifford.allen@sjc.state.ma.us

NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted on this Website are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. This preliminary material will be removed from the Website once the advance sheets of the Official Reports are published. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, Room 1407, Boston, MA 02108; (617) 557-1030; clifford.allen@sjc.state.ma.us

Unofficial Synopsis Prepared by the Reporter of Decisions

The Supreme Judicial Court held today 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." The court stayed the entry of judgment for 180 days "to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."

"Marriage is a vital social institution," wrote Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall for the majority of the Justices. "The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In turn it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations." The question before the court was "whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution," the Commonwealth could deny those protections, benefits, and obligations to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.

In ruling that the Commonwealth could not do so, the court observed that the Massachusetts Constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals," and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens." It reaches its conclusion, the court said, giving "full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth." The Commonwealth, the court ruled, "has failed to identify any constitutionality adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples."

The court affirmed that it owes "great deference to the Legislature to decide social and policy issues." Where, as here, the constitutionality of a law is challenged, it is the "traditional and settled role" of courts to decide the constitutional question. The "marriage ban" the court held, "works a deep and scarring hardship" on same-sex families "for no rational reason." It prevents children of same-sex couples "from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of 'a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized."' "It cannot be rational under our laws," the court held, "to penalize children by depriving them of State benefits" because of their parents' sexual oreintation.

The court rejected the Commonwealth's claim that the primary purpose of marriage was procreation. Rather, the history of the marriage laws in the Commonwealth demonstrates that "it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of marriage."

The court remarked that its decision "does not disturb the fundamental value of marriage in our society." "That same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage's solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support, and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit," the court stated.

The opinion reformulates the common-law definition of civil marriage to mean "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. Nothing that "civil marriage has long been termed a 'civil right,"' the court concluded that "the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice, subject to appropirate government restrictions in the interests of public health, safety, and welfare."

Justices John M. Greaney, Roderick L. Ireland, and Judity A. Cowin joined in the court's opinion. Justice Greaney also filed a separate concurring opinion.

Justices Francis X. Spina, Martha B. Sosman, and Robert J. Cordy each filed separate dissenting opinions.

Justice Greaney concurred "with the result reached by the court, the remedy ordered, and much of the reasoning in the court's opinion," but expressed the view that "the case is more directly resolved using traditional equal protection analysis." He stated that to withhold "relief from the plaintiffs, who wish to marry, and are otherwise eligible to marry, on the ground that the couples are of the same gender, constitutes a categorical restriction of a fundamental right." Moreover, Justice Greaney concluded that such a restriction is impermissible under art. 1 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. In so doing, Justice Greaney did not rely on art. 1, as amended in 1976, because the voters' intent in passing the amendment was clearly not to approve gay marriage, but he relied on well-established principles of equal protection that antedated the amendment.

Justice Cordy, with whom Justice Spina and Justice Sosman joined, dissented on the ground that the marriage statute, as historically interpreted to mean the union of one man and one woman, does not violate the Massachusetts Constitution because "the Legislature could rationally conclude that it furthers the legitimate State purpose of ensuring, promoting, and supporting an optimal social structure for the bearing and raising of children." Justice Cordy stated that the court's conclusions to the contrary are unsupportable in light of "the presumption of constitutional validity and significiant deference afforded to legislative enactments, and the 'undesirability of the judiciary substituting its notion of correct policy for that of a popularly elected legislature' responsible for making it.' Further, Justice Cordy stated that "[w]hile 'the Massachusetts Constitution protects matters of personal liberty against government intrusion at least as zealously and often more so than does the Federal Constitution,' this case is not about government intrusions into matters of personal liberty," but "about whether the State must endorse and support [the choices of same-sex couples] by changing the institution of civil marriage to make its benefits, obligations, and responsibilities applicable to them." Justice Cordy concluded that, although the plaintiffs had made a powerful case for the extension of the benefits and burdens of civil marriage to same-sex couples, the issue "is one deeply rooted in social policy" and 'that decision must be made by the Legislature, not the court."

Justice Spina, in a separately filed dissenting opinion, stated that "[W]hat is at stake in this case is not the unequal treat..nt of individuals or whether individuals rights have been impermissibly burdened, but the power of the Legislature to effectuate social change without interference from the courts, pursuant to art. 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights." He emphasized that the "power to regulate marriage lies with the Legislature, not with the judiciary."

Justice Sosman, in a separately filed dissenting opinion, stated that "the issue is not whether the Legislature's rationale behind [the statutory scheme being challenged] is persuasive to [the court]," but whether it is "rational" for the Legislature to "reserve judgment" on whether changing the definition of marriage "can be made at this time wihtout damaging the institution of marriage or adversely affecting the critical role it has played in our society." She concluded that, "[a]bsent consensus on the issue (which obviously does not exist), or unanimity amongst scientists studying the issue (which also does not exist), or a more prolonged period of observation of this new family structure (which has not yet been possible), it is rational for the Legislature to postpone any redefinition of marriage that would include same-sex couples until such time as it is certain that redefinition will not have unintended and undesirable social consequences."

[cajungirl]

Polygymists wont do that,,they generally have oodles of kids, live in trailors with unfashionable underage girls. Nah, I am against that.

[Rutles4Ever]

Maybe not where you're at...

http://www.euthanasia.com/hospital.html

Catholic Leaders Vow Hospitals Will Stay Pro-Life
Albany -- March 1999 -- Bracing for an assault on Catholic health care, church leaders on Tuesday vowed to fight any effort to force their hospitals to perform abortions, in conflict with their religious beliefs.

Cardinal John O'Connor, archbishop of New York, and Albany Roman Catholic Bishop Howard J. Hubbard said abortion activists are behind an effort to require Catholic and some other religious-afiliated hospitals to perform abortions that are contrary to the teachings of the church.

"There are those in the state of New York trying very, very hard to insist, to demand that either we reject our principles or we will be driven out of business," O'Connor said at a news conference Tuesday. "We will fight against any efforts to try to emasculate the integrity of our approach to the human person."

O'Connor was in Albany Tuesday to stump for the New York State Catholic Conference's legislative agenda. Prominent on that agenda is resisting legislation "which threatens the Catholic health care mission."

O'Connor was responding to numerous pro-abortion groups that have been pressuring Catholic hospitals to perform abortions following the merging of a non-Catholic hospital that performs abortions into a Catholic hospital that doesn't. In many cases, the smaller, non-Catholic hospitals cease performing abortions.

[Remole]

You may want to include the legal stipulation in Catholic Church Law that a marriage, to be sacramental, must also be consumated. No consumation, automatic annulment.

[maryz]

Now I don't see a huge lobby in this country trying to reestablish plural marriage.

What are the oddds that Muslims will assert their claim that, under Islam, a man may have up to four wives?