Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||||||||||
| 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. | |||||||||||||
| Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall | |||||||||||||
| Associate Justices John M. Greaney, Roderick L. Ireland, Frances X. Spina, Judith A. Cowin, Martha B. Sosman, Robert J. Cordy | |||||||||||||
| Case opinions | |||||||||||||
| Majority by: Marshall Joined by: Ireland, Cowin Concurrence by: Greaney Dissent by: Spina Joined by: Sosman, Cordy Dissent by: Sosman Joined by: Spina, Cordy Dissent by: Cordy Joined by: Spina, Sosman |
|||||||||||||
| 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 in Massachusetts.
Contents |
[edit] Ruling
In a 50-page, 4–3 ruling delivered on November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the state 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. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens," the state had no "constitutionally adequate reason for denying marriage to same-sex couples," and "The right to marry is not a privilege conferred by the State, but a fundamental right that is protected against unwarranted State interference." 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 marriage on the ground of due process and equal protection.
The court gave the State Legislature 180 days to change the law to rectify the situation
[edit] Dissents
Three justices: Robert Cordy, Francis Spina and the late Martha Sosman filed separate dissents in opposition to the Court's ruling.
Justice Cordy stated that "the Legislature could rationally conclude that it furthers the legitimate State purpose of ensuring, promoting, and supporting an optimal social structure for the bearing and raising of children." He continued that "[w]hile 'the Massachusetts Constitution protects matters of personal liberty against government intrusion at least as zealously and often more so than does the Federal Constitution,' this case is not about government intrusions into matters of personal liberty," but "about whether the State must endorse and support [the choices of same-sex couples] by changing the institution of civil marriage to make its benefits, obligations, and responsibilities applicable to them."
Justice Spina argued that "[W]hat is at stake in this case is not the unequal treatment of individuals or whether individuals rights have been impermissibly burdened, but the power of the Legislature to effectuate social change without interference from the courts, pursuant to art. 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights." He emphasized that the "power to regulate marriage lies with the Legislature, not with the judiciary."
Justice Sosman, who died in 2007 after an extended battle with breast cancer, concluded that, "[a]bsent consensus on the issue (which obviously does not exist), or unanimity amongst scientists studying the issue (which also does not exist), or a more prolonged period of observation of this new family structure (which has not yet been possible), it is rational for the Legislature to postpone any redefinition of marriage that would include same-sex couples until such time as it is certain that redefinition will not have unintended and undesirable social consequences."
[edit] Political response
Republican Governor Mitt Romney responded by releasing a statement in support of a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts state constitution defining marriage as existing only between "one man and one woman" in order to overrule the court's decision. His statement said, "the people of Massachusetts should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of marriage." This message was taken up by VoteOnMarriage.org but their initiative failed.
The legislature engaged in a contentious debate about how and whether to propose an amendment to the state's constitution in response to Goodridge. Some legislators wanted to create a system of civil unions, some wanted a ban on civil unions, some wanted a ban on same-sex marriage, and some wanted to do nothing (in other words, to let the court's decision stand). A joint session of the State legislature convened near the end of the 2003–04 session to discuss Goodridge. After a dramatic, sometimes chaotic, multi-sided debate, a narrow majority of legislators approved a compromise constitutional amendment proposal, prohibiting same-sex marriage but simultaneously creating a system of civil unions for same-sex couples. Massachusetts law requires that a legislative amendment be approved by a joint session in 2 consecutive sessions, and the same proposal failed during the 2005–06 session [1], and hence was not put before voters in the November 2006 election.
[edit] Status outside Massachusetts
Although marriages in the United States are typically valid across state lines, most states do not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other foreign states or countries. Some legal scholars have argued that such marriages must be recognized under the "full faith and credit" clause of the federal Constitution, however, currently very few states recognize same-sex marriages from Massachusetts.
According to the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which was passed by the 104th United States Congress and signed by then President Clinton, "No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states."
[edit] Subsequent separation of the Goodridges
Julie and Hillary Goodridge, the plaintiffs after whom the case was named, separated amicably in July 2006[2][3][4] and filed for divorce.[5]
[edit] References
- ^ Boston Globe article about failure of legislative amendment
- ^ Levenson, Michael (July 21, 2006). "After 2 years, same-sex marriage icons split up: Were plaintiffs in landmark case". Boston Globe (Boston Globe). http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/07/21/after_2_years_same_sex_marriage_icons_split_up/?page=full. Retrieved 2007-06-08.
- ^ Zezima, Katie (July 22, 2006). "Same-Sex Marriage Plaintiffs Separate". New York Times: pp. A11. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30713FE3F5B0C718EDDAE0894DE404482. Retrieved 2007-06-07.
- ^ Rosenberg, Eva (2007-02-09). "Same-sex couples face complex decisions when doing their taxes". Marketwatch. Dow Jones & Company. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid={155FB143-0999-4958-9230-16C45F5D89A1}. Retrieved 2009-02-24.
- ^ Sweet, Laurel (2009-02-03). "Landmark Jamaica Plain gay couple calls it quits". The Boston Herald (Boston, Massachusetts). http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1149636&format=text. Retrieved 2009-02-24.
