Tweet
Massachusetts court rules ban on *** marriage unconstitutional
State Legislature given 6 months to develop laws
(CNN) --Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state cannot deny ***s and *******s the right to marry and ordered the state's lawmakers to devise changes in the law within six months.
In a 4-3 ruling, the court stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the seven couples that challenged the Massachusetts law.
The ruling could set new legal ground, and drew quick reaction from advocates on both sides of the issue.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney issued a paper statement saying he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and he would support an amendment to the state's constitution "to make that expressly clear."
"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 *** is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions," the court's ruling said. "That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law."
Vermont is the only state in the United States that allows same-*** couples the rights and benefits of marriage. Vermont calls them civil unions, rather than marriage. California's State Assembly recently passed a domestic partnership law to provide similar benefits, but it stops short of allowing ***s to marry. (States determine marriage laws)
Governor might seek alternative to marriage
Romney left the door open for some other way of recognizing same-*** couples.
"Of course," he said, "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."
Connie Mackey of the conservative Family Research Council criticized the ruling, saying it was "a clear case of the courts overruling the majority opinion of the people."
"If the will of the people has anything to do with it ... the people will throw out any legislator that upholds this ruling," she told CNN. "The culture has seen the family unit for thousands of years as one man and one woman for the purpose of raising children."
Mackey also urged passage of a federal constitutional amendment barring same-*** marriages.
But Elizabeth Birch, director of the *** rights organization Human Rights Campaign, argued that the courts are not obliged to support a majority of the people.
"If not for courts, African-Americans would not have had the right to vote, women would not have the right to vote," she said. "The purpose of a constitution is to protect a minority group from the wrath of the majority.
"The majority of people understand that a government-issued civil license to marry is not a threat to anyone," Birch added.
Court used constitution as basis for ruling
The seven same-*** couples that sued the state for denying them marriage licenses argued the Massachusetts' constitution prohibits discrimination because of ***.
In its ruling, the Massachusetts court rejected arguments based on religious or moral grounds -- from either side of the contentious issue.
"Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach," the ruling said.
"The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same *** who wish to marry," the court said. "We conclude that it may not."
Opposition to *** marriage, survey shows
The U.S. Supreme Court is unlikely to interfere in the ruling, which was made solely on the basis of state law and not brought into federal courts.
*** activists say the American judicial system is beginning to catch up with modern society.
In June the Supreme Court ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. (Full story) On June 10, an appeals court in the Canadian province of Ontario struck down a ban on same-*** marriage.
But a majority of people surveyed in late October said *** marriages should not be legally recognized, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. According to the survey, 61 percent said no when asked whether *** marriages should be recognized as valid by law. Thirty-five percent said yes.
The poll, taken October 24-26, surveyed 1,006 people and had an error margin of plus or minus three percentage points.
The same poll showed sharp difference on the issue based on gender. According to the survey, 70 percent of men said no to legalizing *** marriage while 26 percent supported such unions. The survey showed that 53 percent of women opposed *** marriages, while 43 percent supported legalizing them. The question posed by gender had a sampling error of plus or minus five percentage points.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/sa...ing/index.html
State Legislature given 6 months to develop laws
(CNN) --Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state cannot deny ***s and *******s the right to marry and ordered the state's lawmakers to devise changes in the law within six months.
In a 4-3 ruling, the court stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the seven couples that challenged the Massachusetts law.
The ruling could set new legal ground, and drew quick reaction from advocates on both sides of the issue.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney issued a paper statement saying he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and he would support an amendment to the state's constitution "to make that expressly clear."
"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 *** is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions," the court's ruling said. "That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law."
Vermont is the only state in the United States that allows same-*** couples the rights and benefits of marriage. Vermont calls them civil unions, rather than marriage. California's State Assembly recently passed a domestic partnership law to provide similar benefits, but it stops short of allowing ***s to marry. (States determine marriage laws)
Governor might seek alternative to marriage
Romney left the door open for some other way of recognizing same-*** couples.
"Of course," he said, "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."
Connie Mackey of the conservative Family Research Council criticized the ruling, saying it was "a clear case of the courts overruling the majority opinion of the people."
"If the will of the people has anything to do with it ... the people will throw out any legislator that upholds this ruling," she told CNN. "The culture has seen the family unit for thousands of years as one man and one woman for the purpose of raising children."
Mackey also urged passage of a federal constitutional amendment barring same-*** marriages.
But Elizabeth Birch, director of the *** rights organization Human Rights Campaign, argued that the courts are not obliged to support a majority of the people.
"If not for courts, African-Americans would not have had the right to vote, women would not have the right to vote," she said. "The purpose of a constitution is to protect a minority group from the wrath of the majority.
"The majority of people understand that a government-issued civil license to marry is not a threat to anyone," Birch added.
Court used constitution as basis for ruling
The seven same-*** couples that sued the state for denying them marriage licenses argued the Massachusetts' constitution prohibits discrimination because of ***.
In its ruling, the Massachusetts court rejected arguments based on religious or moral grounds -- from either side of the contentious issue.
"Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach," the ruling said.
"The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same *** who wish to marry," the court said. "We conclude that it may not."
Opposition to *** marriage, survey shows
The U.S. Supreme Court is unlikely to interfere in the ruling, which was made solely on the basis of state law and not brought into federal courts.
*** activists say the American judicial system is beginning to catch up with modern society.
In June the Supreme Court ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. (Full story) On June 10, an appeals court in the Canadian province of Ontario struck down a ban on same-*** marriage.
But a majority of people surveyed in late October said *** marriages should not be legally recognized, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. According to the survey, 61 percent said no when asked whether *** marriages should be recognized as valid by law. Thirty-five percent said yes.
The poll, taken October 24-26, surveyed 1,006 people and had an error margin of plus or minus three percentage points.
The same poll showed sharp difference on the issue based on gender. According to the survey, 70 percent of men said no to legalizing *** marriage while 26 percent supported such unions. The survey showed that 53 percent of women opposed *** marriages, while 43 percent supported legalizing them. The question posed by gender had a sampling error of plus or minus five percentage points.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/sa...ing/index.html
Comment