Ban Against Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Unconstitutional
Danielle E. Brown
Issue date: 11/20/03 Section: Campus News
Massachusetts made history Tuesday when its Supreme Judicial Court ruled (4-3) that attorneys for the government "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. The ruling stated, "We declare 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 State Legislature has 180 days to officially change the laws to allow gay couples the right to marry; once the 180 days have passed, Massachusetts will be the first state in America to have legalized same-sex marriage.
Currently other states such as Vermont and California provide benefits to same-sex couples, but neither state allows those couples to marry. In Vermont, the benefits are called "civil unions" not "marriage" and in California people are allowed to have some of the legal benefits of marriage through a "domestic partnership."
The Massachusetts ruling was met with both praise and criticism. The seven Bay State couples that sued for the right to marry were justifiably elated with Tuesday's ruling. One happy couple, Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, has been dating for 32 years and got engaged on the way to the news conference about the ruling. Ms. Bailey said, "Without a doubt this is the happiest day in our lives. The most important thing for us is knowing whatever comes ahead in the rest of our lives, we now know we can be at each others' sides." Elizabeth Birch, director of the Human Rights Campaign and openly gay Massachusetts congressman Barney Frank (Democrat) were also vocal about their support for the ruling.
"If not for the courts," said Birch, "African-Americans would not have had the right to vote, women would not have the right to vote. The purpose of a constitution is to protect a minority group from the wrath of the majority."
On the other hand, President Bush and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (Republican) opposed the ruling. Bush criticized the ruling saying, "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. [The] decision... violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
Romney also released a statement saying that he was willing to recognize same-sex couples in some way, but was opposed to letting them marry. "I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.... Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman," said the Governor.
In response to all the criticism, sociologist Kersti Yllo of Wheaton College said, "If we let gays and lesbians marry, we proclaim that gender inequality is not the central, defining characteristic of marriage - and that is precisely what upsets the conservatives."
Currently other states such as Vermont and California provide benefits to same-sex couples, but neither state allows those couples to marry. In Vermont, the benefits are called "civil unions" not "marriage" and in California people are allowed to have some of the legal benefits of marriage through a "domestic partnership."
The Massachusetts ruling was met with both praise and criticism. The seven Bay State couples that sued for the right to marry were justifiably elated with Tuesday's ruling. One happy couple, Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, has been dating for 32 years and got engaged on the way to the news conference about the ruling. Ms. Bailey said, "Without a doubt this is the happiest day in our lives. The most important thing for us is knowing whatever comes ahead in the rest of our lives, we now know we can be at each others' sides." Elizabeth Birch, director of the Human Rights Campaign and openly gay Massachusetts congressman Barney Frank (Democrat) were also vocal about their support for the ruling.
"If not for the courts," said Birch, "African-Americans would not have had the right to vote, women would not have the right to vote. The purpose of a constitution is to protect a minority group from the wrath of the majority."
On the other hand, President Bush and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (Republican) opposed the ruling. Bush criticized the ruling saying, "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. [The] decision... violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
Romney also released a statement saying that he was willing to recognize same-sex couples in some way, but was opposed to letting them marry. "I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.... Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman," said the Governor.
In response to all the criticism, sociologist Kersti Yllo of Wheaton College said, "If we let gays and lesbians marry, we proclaim that gender inequality is not the central, defining characteristic of marriage - and that is precisely what upsets the conservatives."