by Euan Bear

     As OITM was going to press, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4-3 that preventing couples of the same gender from marrying is unconstitutional under the commonwealth's charter document. Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders successfully litigated the case on behalf of seven same-sex couples.
      Proponents of same-sex marriage hailed the ruling as a victory, although the court stopped short of requiring municipalities to immediately issue marriage licenses. The ruling gives the Massachusetts legislature 180 days to write legislation conforming with its ruling. The legislature is already considering a civil unions-type bill and a proposal for amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages.
      Several reports said that the ruling was very similar to the 1999 Vermont Supreme Court ruling, which resulted in legislation creating civil unions.
      The court in Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health defines civil marriage in Massachusetts as "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others."
      Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, writing for the majority, wrote, "Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support. It brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial and social benefits. In return, it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations."
      "This is a momentous legal and cultural milestone," said Mary L. Bonauto, of GLAD, who was an attorney for the couples. "At long last, gay and lesbian families and their children will finally be equal families in the Commonwealth."
      The court's ruling is based on the equality provisions of the state constitution. Under the "free and equal" clause in the constitution, it held, "The marriage ban works deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason." Because the ruling is based on the Massachusetts Constitution, there is no appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
      Four of the couples in the Goodridge case are raising children together and all have been together for more than six years.
      "This is a profound moment for our family," said Hillary Goodridge on behalf of herself and Julie Goodridge, the named plaintiffs in the case. "We will no longer have to try to explain to our eight-year-old daughter why we can't marry, or that we love each other even though we are not married. And more importantly, we'll be able to provide Annie with the full protections under marriage that we now can't possibly provide no matter how many legal documents we draft and sign."
      Gary Chalmers, a teacher, and Richard Linnell, a nurse, were also plaintiffs in the case. "We are thrilled," said Chalmers. "We've always been like every other family in our neighborhood."
      Susan Murray, one of two attorneys who litigated Vermont's Baker v. State case said in a statement, "Massachusetts has built on the precedent set by Vermont. Now it's up to the Massachusetts legislature to take the next step, and confirm that the only way to provide true equality for its gay and lesbian citizens is to simply open up the marriage laws to gay couples."
      Echoing the groan of other Vermont pro-civil union political activists, Murray cautioned, "It's likely that Massachusetts is in for a battle just like the one that we fought in 2000, both in the legislature and in the subsequent campaign season. Gays and lesbians here in Vermont must to do everything we can to support Massachusetts' fight for full equality."
      "This is a historic day for lesbian and gay couples in Massachusetts who until today have only dreamed of being able to get married," said David Buckel, Lambda Legal's Marriage Project Director. "The court has said explicitly that civil marriage can't be limited to different-sex couples. The state legislature will now look at how - not whether - Massachusetts couples will have equal marriage rights.
      "This isn't a chess game - today's ruling is about real people's lives, hopes and dreams," Buckel said. Lambda Legal is litigating for marriage rights on behalf of seven New Jersey couples.
      Presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (D-Mass) wasted no time in issuing a statement in support of the ruling and encouraging the legislature to uphold equal rights for lesbian and gay couples. "While I continue to oppose gay marriage," he wrote, "I believe that today's decision calls on the Massachusetts state legislature to take action to ensure equal protection for gay couples. These protections are long overdue."
      "Our community and the people of Massachusetts now face a bruising political struggle. We have to make sure that the 'appropriate action' taken by the state legislature is to ensure the freedom to marry for all its citizens, not some attempt to create some kind of separate and fundamentally unequal system," wrote National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Director Matthew Foreman. "We've learned from painful experience that court victories are incomplete - and sometimes hollow - until they are translated into statute and fairly implemented."
      Foreman likewise cautioned pro-gay marriage activists in Massachusetts and nationwide to brace for a "vicious, demonizing, and dehumanizing assault that is likely to be undertaken by anti-gay extremists."
      "Today, the Massachusetts Supreme Court made history," said Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign. "This ruling will never interfere with the right of religious institutions - churches, synagogues and mosques - to determine who will be married within the context of their respective religious faiths. This is about whether gay and lesbian couples in long-term, committed relationships will be afforded the benefits, rights and protections afforded other citizens to best care for their partners and children. This is good for gay couples and it is good for America."
      The Human Rights Campaign signed onto a "friend of the court" brief in Goodridge. A variety of other civil rights organizations, religious groups, child welfare experts, family and legal historians and others also either signed or filed briefs of their own in favor of extending civil marriage laws to same-sex couples.