 |
 |
> >Mass. High Court Rules for Gay Marriage >By JENNIFER PETER, Associated Press Writer > >BOSTON - The Massachusetts high court ruled Wednesday that only full, equal >marriage rights for gay couples — rather than civil unions — would be >constitutional, erasing any doubts that the nation's first same-sex >marriages could take place in the state beginning in mid-May. > >The court issued the opinion in response to a request from the state Senate >about whether Vermont-style civil unions, which convey the state benefits of >marriage — but not the title — would meet constitutional muster. > >"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if >ever, equal," the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage wrote in >the advisory opinion. A bill that would allow for civil unions, but falls >short of marriage, makes for "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory >status for same-sex couples." > >The much-anticipated opinion sets the stage for next Wednesday's >constitutional convention, where the Legislature will consider an amendment >that would legally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. >Without the opinion, Senate President Robert Travaglini had said the vote >would be delayed. > >The soonest a constitutional amendment could end up on the ballot would be >2006, meaning that until then, the high court's decision will be >Massachusetts law no matter what is decided at the constitutional >convention. > >The Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that same-sex couples have a >constitutional right to marry, and gave the Legislature six months to change >state laws to make it happen. > >But almost immediately, the vague wording of the ruling left lawmakers — and >advocates on both side of the issue — uncertain if Vermont-style civil >unions would satisfy the court's decision. > >The state Senate asked for more guidance from the court and sought the >advisory opinion, which was made public Wednesday morning when it was read >into the Senate record. > >When it was issued in November, the 4-3 ruling set off a firestorm of >protest across the country among politicians, religious leaders and others >opposed to providing landmark rights for gay couples to marry. > >President Bush (news - web sites) immediately denounced the decision and >vowed to pursue legislation to protect the traditional definition of >marriage. Church leaders in the heavily Roman Catholic state also pressed >their parishioners to oppose efforts to allow gays to marry. > >And legislators were prepared to vote on a proposed amendment to the state >constitution that would seek to make the court's ruling moot by defining as >marriage as a union between one man and one woman — thus expressly making >same-sex marriages illegal in Massachusetts. > >What the case represented, both sides agree, was a significant new milestone >in a year that has seen broad new recognitions of gay rights in America, >Canada and abroad, including a June U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) >decision striking a Texas ban on gay sex. > >Legal experts, however, said that the long-awaited decision, while clearly >stating that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage, gave >ambiguous instructions to the state Legislature. > >Lawmakers remained uncertain if civil unions went far enough to live up to >the court's ruling — or if actual marriages were required. > >When a similar decision was issued in Vermont in 1999, the court told the >Legislature that it could allow gay couples to marry or create a parallel >institution that conveys all the state rights and benefits of marriage. The >Legislature chose the second route, leading to the approval of civil unions >in that state. > >The Massachusetts decision made no mention of an alternative solution, but >instead pointed to a recent decision in Ontario, Canada, that changed the >common law definition of marriage to include same-sex couples and led to the >issuance of marriage licenses there. > >The state "has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for >denying civil marriage to same-sex couples," the court wrote. "Barred access >to the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage, a person who >enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is >arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding >and cherished institutions." > >The Massachusetts case began in 2001, when seven gay couples went to their >city and town halls to obtain marriage licenses. All were denied, leading >them to sue the state Department of Public Health (news - web sites), which >administers the state's marriage laws. > >A Suffolk Superior Court judge threw out the case in 2002, ruling that >nothing in state law gives gay couples the right to marry. The couples >immediately appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, which heard arguments in >March. > >The plaintiffs argued that barring them from marrying a partner of the same >sex denied them access to an intrinsic human experience and violated basic >constitutional rights. > >Over the past decade, Massachusetts' high court has expanded the legal >parameters of family, ruling that same-sex couples can adopt children and >devising child visitation right for a former partner of a lesbian. > >Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the >country with at 1.3 percent of the total number of coupled households, >according to the 2000 census. In California, 1.4 percent of the coupled >households are occupied by same-sex partners. Vermont and New York also >registered at 1.3 percent, while in Washington, D.C., the rate is 5.1 >percent.