On November 18th 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that the Commonwealth cannot deny members of the same sex the right to be married. Since then, haters have done everything they can to to prevent same-sex marriage from being allowed across the country whether it be by ballot initiatives or constitutional amendments. However, all the efforts of state goverments, the federal government, and the religious right to ban gay marriage will ultimately fail in the courts.
More below...
First, a brief history of the same-sex marriage issue born out of Massachusetts.
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
Marriage is a vital social institution. 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 return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. 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.
This majority decision, written by Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall, sent shockwaves throughout the county. First in Massachusetts, Governor Mitt Romney proposed amending the state constitution to specifically classify marriage as between a man and a woman.
In response, our legislature proposed a constitutional amendment that "only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts," and establishing civil unions for same-sex couples. While I do not think civil unions should be written into the constitution, the main and laudable effect of the amendment would be to overturn the Court’s decision.
The impact was felt outside of Massachusetts as well. In New Paltz, New York the mayor married 25 same-sex couples, provoking a response from Attorney General (and now Governor-elect) Elliot Spitzer.
Essentially, Spitzer held that out-of-state same-sex marriages should (and will) be recognized in New York — not because the full-faith-and-credit clause requires it, but on grounds of equal protection and due process. Given the federal constitution's provisions of equal protection and due process, given similar provisions in every state constitution, and given the precedent of Lawrence, such an analysis is entirely unsurprising. Above all, Spitzer's opinion shows how weak the "public-policy exception" will be as a barrier to cross state recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages.
Other state governments reacted differently, looking to ban same-sex marriage and not recognize marriages performed in other states. The Republican-conntrolled Federal Government looked to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. This movement of discrimination was all started by the SJC decision in Massachusetts. People feared that homosexuality would spread into other states, and they will do anything they can to stop it. However, their efforts will ultimately be fruitless because same-sex marriage is spreading into other states. Today, the court in neighboring Rhode Island will hold a preliminary hearing in a divorce case for a lesbian couple married in Massachusetts.
Hearing today for gay couple seeking divorce in R.I.
A preliminary hearing is expected today for a lesbian couple who filed for divorce in Rhode Island after getting married in Massachusetts.
Margaret Chambers and Cassandra Ormiston are from Providence. They wed after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized gay marriage.
But the couple filed for divorce in October in Rhode Island family court, citing irreconcilable differences.
The problem is that Rhode Island hasn't taken any action to recognize same-sex unions made in Massachusetts, and the laws here are silent on the legality of gay marriages.
The chief family court judge in Rhode Island says he hasn't decided whether his court has jurisdiction. But he plans to hold a preliminary hearing in his chambers this morning.
These lawsuits are the key to legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. When you get to the legal nuts and bolts of the issue, homosexuals are entiltled to the same rights as everyone else, whether it be in marriage or divorce. No one likes divorce, but this case is very important to the movement. The case will force the State of Rhode Island to recognize the marriages performed in Massachusetts (or any other state). And we can expect more of this in other places around the country. Eventually some day, the U.S. Supreme Court will be confronted with the issue of same-sex marriage and reponsible justices on the Court (Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, and Kennedy) will make the right decision. It's crucial, however, to keep this small majority. The Democratic Party leaders in the Senate need to consider this should there be any Supreme Court vacancies, and we need to remind them of this important issue.