The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court today rejected as unconstitutional a bill that would have created a new status, "civil union," which purported to provide same-sex couples with the rights and benefits of marriage but not the title of "marriage." While purporting to give equal rights to civilly united and married couples, the statute would emphasize and entrench an invidious distinction.
In language that explicitly invoked the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, the Massachusetts court rejected "separate but equal" status for same-sex couples:
" Segregating same-sex unions from opposite-sex unions cannot possibly be held rationally to advance or 'preserve' what we stated in Goodridge were the Commonwealth's legitimate interests in procreation, child rearing, and the conservation of resources. See Goodridge, supra at 341. 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 history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal. [citing Brown v. Board of Education]
The battle is now joined. There is little room for doubt that the only principled position is the one stated by the Massachusetts court today. No one would argue that Christians should be barred from marrying Jews or that Muslims should be denied full citizenship on religious grounds. Discrimination against gay people is equally odious. Some will argue that a more timid course would be tactically advantageous. But a more timid course cedes the high ground to the opposition: it concedes that discriminatory treatment is acceptable. The only way to defeat the bigots on this issue is to confront them head-on.