Search

In its extraordinary decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health last month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a prohibition on same-sex marriage violates the Massachusetts constitution. While the court drew some support from federal precedents, its decision was plainly grounded in previous interpretations of the state constitution and its distinctive guarantees of equality and liberty. The U.S. Constitution was not involved; it was state--not federal--law that formed the basis for this ruling. We should therefore celebrate Goodridge, not only because it ends a form of second-class citizenship for gays and lesbians but also because it exemplifies the federal system at its best. The Massachusetts court's most important conclusion in Goodridge was that the state had failed to produce a "rational basis" for its refusal to allow same-sex couples to marry. And, to be sure, it would be preferable if gay marriage had been ratified by the Massachusetts legislature rather than the state supreme court. The reasonableness of the Massachusetts court's decision does not, however, mean the U.S. Supreme Court should follow suit now or in the near future. Quite the contrary. At the national level, judges ought to show caution in ruling on gay rights. An attempt by the U.S. Supreme Court to settle the same-sex marriage debate at this time would be disastrous, undoubtedly causing a heated public backlash and endangering the cause of gay rights itself. In any case, Congress foresaw the ramifications of a Goodridge-like ruling in 1997 when it passed the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which expressly authorizes states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages even if they are valid in the state where they were performed.

Explores the future impact of being married on gay couples. Prediction that, in the future, same-sex weddings will be common; Forecast that history will not look back kindly on the forces that are trying to create elaborate plans stop same-sex marriages; Precedence for looking back into history in horror at the ways one group of people treated another group; Plans being made for same-sex marriage by residents of Massachusetts; Comments from actor Christopher Sieber and partner Kevin Burrows on marriage, being together, and on the time they first heard that the Supreme Court overturned all remaining sodomy laws; What the right to marriage means to gay people; Backlash to the campaign for marriage equality in the form of defence of marriage laws being passed in a variety of states; Comparison of outrage over gay marriage to the outrage over interracial marriage during the 1940's; Discussion of life after the marriage ceremony, when it comes time for the couples to re-organize their lives; Quiet integration of same-sex marriage rights into the private sector; Struggle of William Woods, founder of Hawaii's gay marriage movement, with the Hawaiian legislature over the past few decades; Determination among activist groups to maintain momentum in their legal battles towards the adoption of same-sex marriages.

Discusses the implications of a ruling on same-sex marriage by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Impact on constitutional debates and the U.S. presidential campaign; Views of gay-rights activists; Complications for Democratic presidential candidates; Demands of conservative activists for traditional marriage and a constitutional amendment; Stance of President George W. Bush; Outlook.

Offers a look at same-sex marriage laws in the United States. Report that the Massachusetts legislature voted to uphold the state's same-sex marriage law; Report that the California legislature voted to enact same-sex marriage; Praise for the political strategies of gay rights activists in California; Suggestion that public opinion in the U.S. on gay rights is moving toward full equality.

Comments on the gay-marriage ruling in Massachusetts, with the view that there is no consensus among Massachusetts voters to support the redefinition of marriage. Discussion of how the judges pondered the issue and shut down the compromise option of gay civil unions; Idea that democracy was compromised; Reference to Supreme Court cases such as Roe v. Wade that sparked social turmoil; Opinion that "landmarkism" has a role in making a supposedly progressive decision that does not have public support or any real basis in U.S. constitutional case law.

The article profiles Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, who is far more progressive than former governor Mitt Romney when it comes to gay rights issues. Patrick has been applauded by the gay and lesbian community for his opposition to conservative efforts to undo marriage equality and make it even more difficult for same-sex couples to get married in the United States. Patrick is the first Democrat to hold the office of governor in the state in 16 years, and saw huge support from the gay community during his campaign for office.

The article reports that the Massachusetts General Assembly which voted in 2005 to permit lesbian and gay marriages after the state supreme court ruled that the state constitution required extending the right to marry, will be considering a proposed constitutional amendment to ban lesbian and gay marriages. A vote of the legislature is required to put the provision on the ballot. Moreover, lawmakers said that they will vote on the amendment this 2007.

Reports that California superior-court judge Richard Kramer found the traditional marriage laws of his state to be outdated and irrational. Comparison to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, which rejected the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman; Discussion of the link between marriage and procreation; View of Kramer that measures of the California legislature to help same-sex couples brought separate but equal status for gays.

The article profiles the seven same-sex couples who sued the state of Massachusetts when they were denied marriages licenses. On November 18, 2003 the highest court in Massachusetts ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and the legislature was ordered to fix the problem within 180 days. Governor Mitt Romney opposed the court's decision and offered his support for civil unions instead of marriage. He encourages a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Amongst the couples who sued the state are Gina Smith and Heidi Norton, Ellen Wade and Maureen Brodoff, and Gary Chalmers and Richard Linnell.

The article reports on reactions to the ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that it was unconstitutional to exclude gay couples from marriage. "There's only one way to read this, from my perspective," says Mary Bonauto, an attorney at the Boston organization Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders and lead counsel in the case, "We won the right to marry." Marriage opponents, however, find less clarity in the November 18 decision. The sticking point, they say is the 180 days justices gave the legislature to respond to the ruling. They say the six-month stay is the court's way of providing lawmakers enough leeway to pass nonmarriage legislation -- such as civil unions or domestic-partnership packages -- and still meet its mandate. INSET: "I do" -- do they?.

The article explores whether the success of gay rights legislation in New England can be repeated in other parts of the U.S. Beginning with Massachusetts's passage of legislation in 1989 banning antigay discrimination and ending when Maine and New Hampshire adopted similar measures in spring 1997, all six New England states have approved some form of statewide legal protection for their gay and lesbian residents. The clean sweep of the region left activists searching for ways to apply its lessons to other states. Yet the unique political circumstances of New England are unlikely to be replicated elsewhere anytime soon. In addition to historical support for civil rights, Maine and New Hampshire have sympathetic governors, and the willingness of Catholic Church leaders to remain neutral.

This article presents the author's opinions on the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts. Arguments are presented which suggest that same sex marriage will remain permanently in Massachusetts, that its opponents have been arguing hysterically for years that authorizing gay marriage would mean the end of civilization as we know it, and that since gay marriage was made legal in the state, no catastrophes such as the sky falling have been reported in the state. A discussion of a constitutional amendment in the state which would have made it illegal for gays to wed is presented.

Reports on the concerns of social conservatives over adoptions by same-sex couples following the endorsement of gay marriage in Massachusetts. Provisions of state's anti-discrimination laws for gay couples; Efforts of religious groups to oppose gay adoption; Stance of evangelicals on gay adoption according to a survey.

The article reports that the shooting incident at the New Bedford, Massachusetts gay bar, Puzzles Lounge on February 2, 2006, became a catalyst for a renewed push for federal hate-crimes legislation. In the incident, Jacob Robida injured three patrons with a hatchet and a gun and eventually shot himself in the head on February 4, 2006 in Gassville, Arkansas. This incident has prompted lawmakers and gay rights leaders across the U.S. to argue that the incident underscores the urgent need for the U.S. Senate to pass a gay-inclusive law that cleared the House of Representatives in September 2005.

This article presents information on laws related to gay marriage in Massachusetts. Just over a year after seven same-sex couples argued for equal marriage rights before Massachusetts' highest court, history was made on May 17 as the state became the first in the nation to legalize gay marriage. After waiting 33 years, Linda Davies and Gloria Bailey of Orleans, Massachusetts, became co-defendants in last year's landmark case. Once the wedding is over, however, couples such as Bailey and Davis who marry in Massachusetts face a minefield studded with political turmoil and legal uncertainties as some eventually try to seek recognition of their nuptials in other states or apply for spouse's benefits under laws written for heterosexual couples. The onset of gay marriages in Massachusetts is likely to energize moves already afoot by religious and conservative groups to shore up the traditional definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Legal scholars predict that couples who marry in Massachusetts--no matter what state they live in--will file lawsuits targeting the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and sanctions laws in 39 states banning gay marriage.

Reports on various gay issues in the U.S. as of April 2004. Order of the California Supreme Court to halt the issuance of marriage licenses for gay couples in San Francisco; Reaction of Kate Kendell of the National Center for Lesbian Rights to the order; Legislature's marriage-ban proposal in Massachusetts.

Discusses a law issued by Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court which allows gay marriage in the state but not equal rights granted to spouses in a marriage. Reactions of the public to the law; States in the U.S. which issued a law allowing gay marriages; Political reaction to the law issued by Massachusetts.

The nation's most prominent far-right religious groups have decided that teamwork is needed to oppose the Massachusetts supreme judicial court's ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, so they have formed the Coalition for Marriage to lobby for a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. A chorus of "amens" rang through the statehouse in Boston on January 7 at the first in a series of planned rallies. The coalition, which includes such notoriously antigay groups as Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America, has purchased office space in Newton, Mass., and plans to advertise on television and radio to generate "outrage."

One of only 11 openly gay state senators in the country, Massachusetts' Cheryl A. Jacques, will leave her post to succeed Elizabeth Birch as executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization, when Birch steps down at the end of the year. During her 11-year tenure in the state legislature, Jacques led the fight to include sexual orientation in hate-crimes legislation and helped to defeat a proposed Defense of Marriage Act in the state.

The author presents his opinion on homosexuals. Kaptain Karl learned well from his mentor Lee Atwater. No need to drag out that Willie Horton ad again. First Canada's approval of gay marriage, with Massachusetts threatening, then the U.S. Supreme Court vote overturning sodomy rulings, with Tony Scalia's warning that the whole thing could lead to gay marriage here. Shortly after Pat Robertson issued his Operation Supreme Court Freedom fatwa, a beam, not a log, falling at the opening of the new Constitution museum, almost took out Sandra Day O' Swing Vote.

Reports that Massachusetts-based attorney Tammy Baldwin was the first lesbian to be elected to the U.S. Congress in 1998 following the approval of 1981 legislative bill for banning bias based on sexual orientation in Wisconsin. Educational qualification of Baldwin; Views of Baldwin on discrimination based on sexual orientation.