On Feb. 3, the highest court in Massachusetts ruled that same-sex couples must be entitled to nothing short of full civil marriage, strengthening and reaffirming the court’s Nov. 18 decision. The statement came in response to a Massachusetts Senate inquiry as to whether a proposed law permitting gay and lesbian couples to enter into civil unions but reserving marriage for opposite-sex couples would be considered constitutional under the court’s 2003 ruling.
The Court’s statement in support of gay marriage is a welcome reminder of how a fair and independent judiciary can promote equality, even when faced with widespread public prejudice and opposition.
On Nov. 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down a series of state laws which prohibited same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, arguing that the Massachusetts Constitution “forbids the creation of second-class citizens.” The court instructed the legislature that they must perform all appropriate actions to comply with the ruling within 180 days.
In response, the State Senate prepared to introduce a bill which would have permitted gay and lesbian couples to enter into civil unions, guaranteeing them all rights and privileges afforded to married heterosexual couples but denying them the official title of “civil marriage.” The Senate sent the Court a written query as to whether such a law would comply with the Court’s constitutional interpretation.
The Justices responded with a resounding no, arguing that such a distinction would continue to be unconstitutional, as it would continue to deny homosexual couples the “intangible benefits” of marriage. The court concluded by the same four-three margin as in the Nov. ruling that gay and lesbian couples must be permitted to marry by the original May 16 deadline.
Senate conservatives along with religious leaders and various community activists have responded with a push for a constitutional amendment along the lines of the Defense of Marriage Acts present in many other states, which officially define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Such an amendment will not be possible until 2006 when Massachusetts holds its constitutional convention.
While the battle is far from over, the Massachusetts Court ruling is definitely a step in the right direction. On issues ranging from healthcare to custody rights, homosexual couples have fought an uphill battle for rights and privileges that heterosexual couples consider natural. As one of the last minority groups in the United States that is still legally discriminated against, homosexuals epitomize the oppressed minority that the constitution and the courts were meant to protect.
