Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts
Encyclopedia : S : SA : SAM : Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts
| Same-sex marriage |
|---|
| Performed nationwide in |
| Netherlands (2001) |
| Belgium (2003) |
| Spain (2005) |
| Canada (2005) |
| Performed statewide in |
| Massachusetts, USA (2004) |
| To be performed in |
| South Africa (by December, 2006) |
| Debate in other countries and regions |
| Aruba |
| Australia |
| Austria |
| China |
| Estonia |
| France |
| Ireland |
| Latvia |
| Lithuania |
| New Zealand |
| Portugal |
| Romania |
| United Kingdom |
| United States: CA NY WA |
| See also |
| Civil union |
| Registered partnership |
| Domestic partnership |
| Federal Marriage Amendment |
| Same-sex marriage timeline |
Same-sex marriage in the U.S. state of Massachusetts became legal on May 17, 2004 because the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional to allow only heterosexual couples to marry. It is the first and only U.S. state to make same-sex marriages legal.["SJC: Gay marriage legal in Mass."] at The Boston Globe
History
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health was brought by Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies; Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade; Hillary Goodridge and Julie Goodridge; Gary Chalmers and Richard Linnell; Heidi Norton and Gina Smith; Michael Horgan and David Balmelli; and David Wilson and Robert Compton; the plantiffs successfully argued that denying gay couples equal marriage rights was unconstitutional. The court specified that its November 18, 2003 ruling would take effect in 180 days, on May 17, 2004.The first applications for marriage licenses for same-sex couples were issued at City Hall in Cambridge. Gay couples formed long lines in anticipation, with some waiting outside the City Hall all evening May 16. Beginning at 12:01 a.m. on the May 17, they were permitted to fill out their Notices of Intent to Marry. The first to file were Marcia Hams and Susan Shepherd. Other cities and towns in Massachusetts began issuing applications later in the morning, during business hours.
Massachusetts normally has a three-day waiting period before issuing marriage licenses, but many couples obtained waivers of the waiting period in order to be wed on May 17. Among these were the seven couples who were party to the lawsuit that led to the legalization of same-sex marriage, including Julie Goodridge and Hillary Goodridge, who were the first to apply for a license in Boston and whose eight-year old daughter Annie was their ringbearer and flower girl at their wedding at the Unitarian Universalist Association of Boston.
Cambridge took in 227 applications overnight; Provincetown took in 113; more than 1,000 applications were made on the first day statewide. Two-thirds of applicants were women, and one-half of the applicants had been partners for more than a decade. Forty percent of the female couples had children in their homes. In the first year, more than 6200 gay and lesbian couples were married due to pent-up demand, but that number fell to only 1900 marriages in the second year. Out of the total of more than 8100 marriages, 64% involve lesbian couples.["8,100 gay, lesbian couples marry after 2004 decision"] In comparison, more than 36,000 heterosexual couples are married each year in Massachusetts.["National Center for Health Statistics"]
Governor Mitt Romney launched the "superslate" campaign in 2004, based on the idea that the state Republican party could use Conservative ideals and family values as a wedge issue and gain seats, spending millions of his own dollars and personally campaigning for Republican candidates in traditionally Democratic seats. Despite his efforts, the Republican party nonetheless lost three seats in the 2004 election. Since then, many legislators have changed their views to reflect growing support for gay marriage among their constituents. One of the original sponsors of the amendment to ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions, Brian Lees, said, "Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry."["Same-Sex Marriage Win In Boston"] at CBS News
Future
The future of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is still uncertain, as there is an active effort to amend the state constitution in order to forbid it. In order to amend the state constitution, it is necessary for an amendment first to pass two state constitutional conventions (a joint session of the state general court (house of representatives and senate), before going before the voters in a referendum. An amendment that would forbid same-sex marriage, establish civil unions for same-sex couples conveying the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, and as convert existing same-sex marriages into civil unions passed the first constitutional convention but was defeated in the second.Many moderate legislators who had initially voted for the amendment abandoned it, and most legislators on the right elected to throw their support behind a new ballot initiative to ban future same-sex marriages, with no provision for civil unions.
The new amendment is sponsored by an organization called VoteOnMarriage.Org. The full text of the proposed amendment reads "When recognizing marriages entered into after the adoption of this amendment by the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define marriage only as the union of one man and one woman."
The new amendment was certified as a valid referendum on September 7, 2005 by Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly.["Reilly OK's 2008 initiative on ban of gay marriage"] at The Boston Globe VoteOnMarriage.Org then collected 170,000 signatures before the December 7, 2005 deadline; 65,825 were required. The amendment was challenged in court, based on a provision in the Massachusetts Constitution (Article 48, Section 2), which prohibits the use of an initiative petition for "reversal of a judicial decision."[link] In July 2006, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the amendment did not constitute "reversal" of a judicial decision.[Gay-marriage opponents get SJC go-ahead] Scott Helman, Boston Globe, July 11, 2006 If passed, the amendment will restrict future marriages to opposite-sex couples but not rescind the approximately 8,000 same-sex marriage licenses already issued. ['Marriage' amendment OK'd for vote] Cheryl Wetzstein, The Washington Times, July 11, 2006
The measure can now appear on the ballot if 50 legislators approve it in each of two consecutive sessions of the Massachusetts General Court. If they do so, the measure will appear on the ballot in 2008.["Massachusetts gay marriage opponents move closer to ballot initiative"] at JURIST The first vote was scheduled for July 12, 2006,["Tactics honed as debate nears on banning gay marriage"] at The Boston Globe but was postponed until November 9, 2006 and will take place after the next state elections."Lawmakers delay vote on gay marriage measure." Andrea Estes and Russell Nichols, The Boston Globe, July 13, 2006
Timeline
- May 7, 2002: Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Thomas E. Connolly issues an opinion in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health denying plaintiffs' statutory and constitutional claims for recognition of same-sex marriage. Relying on the history of Massachusetts marriage laws and constitutional provisions, Judge Connolly determined that the marriage statute was not gender-neutral and no fundamental right to same-sex marriage existed. He concluded by saying that the issue should be handled by the legislature.
- November 18, 2003: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules 4 to 3 in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and gives the state legislature 180 days to change the law. The 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" because of a clause in the state's constitution that forbids "the creation of second-class citizens."
- February 4, 2004: The court clarified in a statement to the Massachusetts Senate that it was unacceptable to allow heterosexual couples marriages but homosexual couples only civil unions; they found the distinction unconstitutional discrimination, even if the state rights granted were otherwise identical.["Opinions of the Justices to the Senate"] at The Boston Globe
- February 11, 2004: A constitutional convention is convened to attempt to overturn the Supreme Court's decision. After six weeks marked by intense debate and tactical voting to prevent a more extreme measure, the state legislature narrowly passes an amendment 105-92 that would ban same-sex marriage but allow civil unions. The amendment could have taken effect if it was approved by the legislature in 2005, and by popular vote in 2006.["Vote ties civil unions to gay-marriage ban"] at The Boston Globe
- May 17, 2004: The Supreme Court's ruling went into effect, 180 days after it was issued. The city of Cambridge began processing applications at one minute past midnight, cheered on by a crowd of five thousand gathered outside City Hall. Massachusetts has a three-day waiting period after a marriage application has been issued, but couples can seek a judicial waiver of that requirement.["Cambridge plays host to a giant celebration"] at The Boston Globe. The first marriage was issued to Tanya McCloskey and Marcia Kadish, of the Boston suburb of Malden — was finalized by 9:15 a.m. on May 17.["Same-sex couples exchange vows in Massachusetts"] at CNN
- September 7, 2005: Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly certified the wording of a referendum to ban gay marriage: "When recognizing marriages entered into after the adoption of this amendment by the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define marriage only as the union of one man and one woman."
- September 14, 2005: The second convention to amend the Commonwealth's Constitution to disallow same-sex marriage (but permit civil unions) was held, which would allow the issue to go to a popular vote in 2006. This time, the amendment was defeated soundly, 157-39, and thus will not be put before the voters.["Massachusetts Rejects Bill to Eliminate Gay Marriage"] at The New York Times
- December 7, 2005: VoteOnMarriage.Org submitted 170,000 signatures for the referendum, with 65,825 required. The amendment can now appear on the ballot if 50 legislators approve it in conventions during the current and next legislative sessions. The first convention is scheduled for July 12, 2006.
- March 30, 2006: The Supreme Judicial Court upheld a 1913 Massachusetts law that prohibits non-residents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would be void in their home state. It ruled that same-sex couples domiciled in other states that expressly prohibit same-sex marriage cannot legally marry in Massachusetts, and remanded cases from New York and Rhode Island to the Superior Court to determine whether same-sex marriage is prohibited in those states.["Will the State of Massachusetts Ever Permit Same-Sex Out-of-Staters to Marry?"] at FindLaw
See also
References
External links
- [Boston Herald profile of the seven same-sex couples marrying today]
- [Same-Sex Marriage in Massachusetts] by [Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders]
- [Defending Same-Sex Marriage Rights in Massachusetts]
- [Frequently Asked Questions: Goodridge et al. v. The Department of Public Health] by the Human Rights Campaign
- [Goodridge v. Department of Public Health] - text of Massachusetts decision authorizing same-sex marriage
- [Almost 3,000 same-sex marriage licenses filed in Massachusetts since May 17]
- [VoteOnMarriage.Org]
| Same-sex marriage in the United States |
| ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||
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.