BOSTON (AP) - Now that Massachusetts' highest court has declared that gay couples have the right to marry under the state constitution, the political debate begins over how the Legislature should react.
In its 4-3 decision, the Supreme Judicial Court gave the Legislature 180 days to rewrite the state's marriage laws for the benefit of gay couples.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution," Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote.
The seven gay couples who filed the lawsuit and their attorney argue that the decision leaves state lawmakers little leeway to do anything but change state marriage statutes to reflect the court's decision.
|
(AP) Mike Holland, left, and Jim Gatteau of San Francisco, listen to speakers at a same-sex marriage...
Full Image | |
But legal experts and some opponents said the decision - while emphatically supporting a gay right to marriage - is ambiguous and leaves open the possibility of civil unions, similar to those practiced in Vermont, rather than marriage. It also is based on the state Constitution, which could be amended by the voters.
Vermont's high court issued a decision in 1999 similar to the Massachusetts court ruling, but told the Legislature it could allow gay couples to marry or create a similar institution that confers the rights and benefits of marriage. Lawmakers chose the second.
Lawmakers in Massachusetts have considered several civil union bills but also have spent more than two years debating a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex unions in the state.
After Tuesday's ruling, Republican Gov. Mitt Romney and other state lawmakers vowed to push for the constitutional amendment.
Following similar court rulings, Hawaii and Alaska "made these kind of constitutional amendments, and I think we have to do the same thing to preserve the institution," Romney said Wednesday on NBC's "Today" show.
|
(AP) Angela Stroup, 19, left, Beth Hamilton, 23, center, and Lauren Lamoly-Gay, 20, celebrate during a...
Full Image | |
An amendment could go before voters in Massachusetts as early as 2006 if it won approval by the end of the 2003-2004 legislative session. It also would require approval during the 2005-2006 session. A joint session of the House and Senate, which rejected the amendment last year, is scheduled to meet to debate the measure in February.
"I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history," Romney said. "Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman ... and our constitution and laws should reflect that."
Even if such an amendment makes it to the ballot in 2006, Massachusetts voters will have had two years to see that same-sex marriages pose no threat to society, said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is gay.
The Rev. Jerry Falwell, debating on Frank on CBS'"The Early Show" Wednesday, responded: "The people of Massachusetts, one of the more liberal states, will do what Hawaii and other liberal states have done. They'll say no to it."
Tuesday's ruling in Massachusetts was another milestone in a year that has seen a significant expansion of gay rights around the world, including a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June striking a Texas ban on gay sex. Canadian courts also legalized gay marriage over the summer.
|
(AP) Michael Horgan of Boston, left, one of 14 plaintiffs who sued the state of Massachusetts,...
Full Image | |
Despite its ambiguities, the Massachusetts decision was hailed by gay rights advocates, who have long fought for inclusion of same-sex couples in the institution of marriage.
"This is a historic day for equality in the commonwealth," said Rep. Alice Wolf, a Democrat. "It very clearly says that fairness and equality under the law are the bedrocks of our constitution and must apply to everyone."
Others, including some of the dissenting justices, argued that the court made a decision that should rightfully have been made by elected officials.
"I have always believed in treating people fairly," Attorney General Tom Reilly said in a statement. "But I also believe that such a profound change in social policy should have been decided by the Legislature, not the courts."
Tuesday's ruling was denounced by President Bush, Romney and the Roman Catholic Church. However, for the gay couples involved in the suit there was jubilation, champagne and proposals of marriage.
"As soon as I could, I finally asked her to marry me," Linda Davies said, beaming with her arm wrapped around Gloria Bailey, her partner of 32 years. "She couldn't answer until we could legally do it. And I'm happy to tell the world, she said 'Yes.'"
