Out In The Mountains Logo



News

Lawmaker Targets Vermont Schools

Vermont Civil Union Review Commission Continues to Study Landmark Law

Vermont Legislators Oppose CU Recognition in Georgia Lawsuit

New Leader to Head Vermont CARES

Massachusetts Marriage Case Advances

Samara Supporters Take Back the Statehouse

New England Coalition for Inclusive Scouting Created

the Rest of Our World ...

Views

Features

Letters to the Editor

Columns

Arts

Community Compass

Gayity

Milestones

News Section Header

Massachusetts Marriage Case Advances



by Pat Robinson

     “It’s time for our Commonwealth to live up to the equality guarantees of our state Constitution,” were some of Mary Bonato’s remarks during a press release by New England’s Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) in Boston, August, 20, 2001.
      GLAD has filed a 69 page motion for summary judgment with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office as the next step in a case filed by seven same-sex couples in April 2001, in Suffolk Superior Court, Boston, Mass.
      The seven gay and lesbian couples from five different counties in the Commonwealth have all applied for and been refused a marriage license. On this basis, the attorney’s for the plaintiffs brought the suit based on similar actions used as the cornerstone of the Baker vs. State landmark Vermont case and decision.
      Ms. Bonato, GLAD Civil Rights Director and an attorney for the case, will argue that: “any interpretation of the marriage laws as prohibiting civil marriage between same-sex couples is unconstitutional.” Among the many arguments laid out in the brief, were the following: “denying civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples violates the plaintiff’s rights to equality; that access to civil marriage is a fundamental right; and that there is simply no legitimate secular justification for excluding qualified same-sex couples from the institution of state-created civil marriage.”
      Some of the specific items the law would do: Protect the confidential and intimate nature of the married relationship, such as hospital rights; respects the family as an economic unit, i.e. obligation of support, pensions, social security, and death benefits; interdependence of family members, i.e. family leave, workers compensation, etc.; create and maintain parent/child relationships, i.e. custody and support.
      The plaintiff couples involved in this landmark case are: Hillary and Julie Goodridge of Boston, parents of a five year old daughter; Michael Horgan and Ed Balmelli of Boston and from large families in Central Mass.; Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade of Newton who share a twelve year old daughter; Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, a couple for thirty years; Richard Linnell and Gary Chalmers of Northbridge, parents of an eight year old daughter; Heidi Norton and Gina Smith of Northampton with two young sons; and Robert Compton and David Wilson of Boston, each parents of grown children, and David is a grandfather of four, also.
     
More information regarding this case, and the plaintiffs can be found at GLAD’s website at www.glad.org or by calling (617) 426-1350. Copies of the summary judgment filings are available on request, Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, Suffolk Superior Court No. 01-1647-A.
     
20 people at the New Ipswich Post Office, New Ipswich, N.H. and 16 people at a meeting in the Episcopal Divinity School Library, Radcliff College, Cambridge, Mass were asked the following question on August 21, 2001: “Massachusetts Superior Court is about to hear a case regarding same-sex civil marriage/unions. You are A.) for B.) against C.) undecided?” The breakdown is as follows: Mass. residents, 14 for; 2 undecided. N.H., 11 for; 2 against; 7 undecided.



Copyright © Mountain Pride Media