Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
Encyclopedia : G : GO : GOO : Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
| Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts | |||||||||
| Argued March 4, 2003 Decided November 18, 2003 | |||||||||
| |||||||||
| Holding | |||||||||
| The denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated provisions of the state constitution guaranteeing individual liberty and equality, and was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Superior Court of Massachusetts at Suffolk vacated and remanded. | |||||||||
| Court membership | |||||||||
| |||||||||
| Case opinions | |||||||||
| |||||||||
| 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 rights in Massachusetts.
In a 50-page, 4-3 ruling delivered on November 18th, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that Massachusetts 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 legislature 180 days to change the law to rectify the situation.
In response to Goodridge, some in the legislature proposed a system of civil unions, like those in Vermont, but there was disagreement on whether this solution would satisfy the court's mandate. On February 4th, 2004, the four-justice majority of the court clarified its ruling at the request of the state legislature. Stating that "the history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the court's opinion said that nothing short of equal marriage rights would be constitutional. Civil unions would, according to the court, create an "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."
Republican Governor Mitt Romney promptly released a statement in support of a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts state constitution defining marriage as existing only between "one man and one woman." His statement said, "the people of Massachusetts should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of marriage." After much debate, a joint session of the Massachusetts legislature approved a compromise constitutional amendment proposal, prohibiting same-sex marriage but creating civil unions for same-sex couples, before the 2003-2004 session ended. However, the same proposal failed during the 2005-2006 session [#endnote_legislativeAmendmentFails], and hence will not be put before voters in the November 2006 election. Simultaneously, citizens' groups circulated petitions to propose an alternative constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage without creating civil unions. Currently, supporters intend for this amendment to be put to a popular vote in the November 2008 election.
However, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, along with similar laws in 38 other states, means that other states may not be required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts under the normal principle of full faith and credit. Because the United States Supreme Court has not directly ruled on this question, the exact state of the law is uncertain.
The proposed Federal Marriage Amendment could possibly negate the ruling, and the marriages it will allow, but that would most likely be ruled upon by future decisions by one or more federal courts.
References
↑ [Boston Globe article about failure of legislative amendment]External link
- [Unofficial synopsis and text of the decision] from the Massachusetts court system website.
From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.