In a 4-3 ruling, the Supreme Judicial Court said Massachusetts
cannot deny civil marriage rights to two people of the same sex who
wish to marry -- although it stopped short of ordering the state to
start issuing marriage licenses.
"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 court said, saying state law forbids the creation of
second-class citizens.
The ruling was akin to throwing kerosene on the fire of America's
ongoing political debate over gay rights, as conservatives voiced
outrage and renewed their push for a U.S. constitutional ban on
same-sex marriage.
"In this radical, reckless decision, four political appointees in
black robes are attempting to redefine the biological reality that
marriage is the union of a man and a woman," said Evelyn Reilly,
director of public policy for the Massachusetts Family Institute.
David Buckel, director of the marriage project at gay rights
group Lambda Legal, said his group would now push for gay marriages
across the country in what he characterized as a "state-by-state"
battle.
JUNE WEDDING ALREADY PLANNED
Gays and lesbians will have to wait until next spring at the
earliest to wed in Massachusetts because the court put its decision
on hold for 180 days to give the legislature a chance to bring state
marriage laws in line with the ruling.
But among the seven homosexual couples who sued the state in 2001
after their requests for marriage licenses were rejected, at least
one pair -- Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies -- said they were already
planning on a June wedding.
"This is the happiest day in our lives," said Bailey, choking
back tears as she giddily showed off her heirloom diamond engagement
ring at an emotional news conference.
Across the country, gays and lesbians celebrated as the
Massachusetts court delivered another victory in their decades-old
drive for acceptance and equality.
But regardless of what happens in Massachusetts, gay marriages
will not be equal under federal laws for purposes of taxes, health
and retirement benefits.
The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, signed by former President Bill
Clinton (news
- web
sites), defined marriage for federal purposes as between one
woman and one man. The law also said individual states were not
obliged to honor gay marriage laws passed in other states.
"Even after this decision -- as wonderful as it is -- same-sex
couples who get married will still not be completely equal because
the federal government refuses to recognize their relationships and
provide full equality for them," said James Esseks of the American
Civil Liberties Union (news
- web
sites).
Only one other state, Vermont, legally recognizes same-sex
couples and allows them to enter into "civil unions" -- giving them
many of the legal protections of marriage.
LEGISLATIVE BATTLES SET
Debate over the issue of same-sex unions has intensified since
Canada took steps to legalize gay marriages and the U.S. Supreme
Court (news
- web
sites) in June struck down state sodomy laws. The Massachusetts
ruling set the stage for legislative battles both in Boston and in
the nation's capital.
Calling the decision an act of "judicial tyranny," the Christian
Coalition of America urged Congress to quickly pass an amendment to
the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriages.
"Traditional marriage is one of the last obstacles to the
complete normalization of homosexuality in America," said the
group's president, Roberta Combs.
Opponents of gay marriage may also try to amend the Massachusetts
constitution to define marriage as exclusively between a man and a
woman, thereby short-circuiting Tuesday's ruling. Massachusetts Gov.
Mitt Romney, a Republican, said he would support such a
constitutional amendment.
But attorney Mary Bonauto, who represented the seven plaintiff
couples, said it is impossible for the state constitution to be
amended before the 180-day stay expires.
