Massachusetts Court: Gay Civil Unions Not Enough

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage/index.html

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court split along familiar lines Wednesday, ruling that civil unions are not the constitutional equivalent of civil marriage.

The four justices who appeared to legalize same-sex marriage last November in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, confirmed the plain language of their earlier opinion, stating without hesitation that ordering a separate but equal civil union status "would have the effect of maintaining and fostering a stigma of exclusion that the [state] Constitution forbids."

The proposed civil union bill, presented to the high court by the state Senate as a compromise plan, "would deny to same-sex 'spouses' only a status that is specially recognized in society and has significant social and other advantages," wrote the court. "The Massachusetts Constitution, as was explained in the Goodridge opinion, does not permit such invidious discrimination, no matter how well-intentioned."

Writing in dissent, Justice Martha Sosman called the issue a "pitched battle over who gets to use the 'm' word," dismissing the entire matter as a "squabble over the name to be used," and even quoting Shakespeare to this effect.

As an indication of the philosophical chasm separating the seven justices, the majority replied that Sosman's interpretation "so clearly misses the point that further discussion appears to be useless." Sosman herself, in turn, said the majority failed to address the key question of whether the state Legislature had a constitutionally sound reason for creating two separate institutions to govern gay and straight couples.

The opinion was universally hailed by GLBT rights advocates.

"Lesbian and gay people are not being treated equally as long as we are denied full marriage equality, and Massachusetts' highest court made that clear again today," said David Buckel, director of Lambda Legal's Marriage Project.

"It comes as no surprise to most people that the court upheld its earlier ruling for equality and fairness," Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement. "In handing down Goodridge, the state's highest court did the only thing it could do in the face of such glaring discrimination against hard-working, taxpaying couples and their children in Massachusetts. Today, the court reaffirmed its fair-minded and historic decision."

Now the road is clear for same-sex couples to marry in Massachusetts starting next May, in conformity with the Goodridge opinion. This timetable will not, however, stop conservatives from angling for an amendment to the state Constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage in the future. An anti-marriage amendment vote before the combined Legislature is scheduled for Feb. 11. But the question could not come before voters until November 2006, at the earliest.

http://planetout.com/news/article.html?2004/02/04/1