Massachusetts court strikes gay marriage ban: Finds "no rational basis" for law.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

CNN

In a ruling posted on its Web site, the Supreme Judicial Court said the state of Massachusetts may not “deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.”

From the decision:

[The Commonwealth] “has failed to identify any constitutionality adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.”

And this (from the synopsis by the Reporter of decisions):

The “marriage ban” the court held, “works a deep and scarring hardship” on same-sex families “for no rational reason.” It prevents children of same-sex couples “from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of 'a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized.”’ “It cannot be rational under our laws,” the court held, “to penalize children by depriving them of State benefits” because of their parents’ sexual oreintation.

The decision stopped short of legalizing gay marriage but gave the legislature 180 days to come up with a solution.
So what did this mean for gay marriage in the US? SDMB attorneys, please weigh in.

[Patty_O_Furniture]

Huh. They thought about the children.

[Hamlet]

From my quick scan of the case:

Well, as far as it’s ramifications, the Court was clear to confine it’s ruling to an interpretation of the Maryland Constitution. They said:

The Massachusetts Constitution protects matters of personal liberty against government incursion as zealously, and often more so, than does the Federal Constitution, even where both Constitutions employ essentially the same language.

and

We also reject the argument suggested by the department, and elaborated by some amici, that expanding the institution of civil marriage in Massachusetts to include same-sex couples will lead to interstate conflict. We would not presume to dictate how another State should respond to today’s decision. But neither should considerations of comity prevent us from according Massachusetts residents the full measure of protection available under the Massachusetts Constitution. The genius of our Federal system is that each State’s Constitution has vitality specific to its own traditions, and that, subject to the minimum requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment, each State is free to address difficult issues of individual liberty in the manner its own Constitution demands.

It is clear that they limited their holding to only Massachusettes. As the Supreme Court of Massachusettes, they are the final arbiters of what their Constitution means, so there will likely be no successful appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

I guess that means that gay marriage is OK in Massachusettes. I’ll have to dig a little deeper to see about it’s implications in other states.

[minty_green]

Karl Rove is a very happy man this morning.

[Kalhoun]

Wah-HOO! This is a good thing, especially coming from a more prominent state. It somehow adds more muscle to the decision. I have to wonder if the solution they come up with will include using the same license all other Mass. residents use or if it will be altered somehow to draw a distinction between gay unions and other unions. I really don’t see how the opponents of this decision can get around it. The decision was so strongly worded that I can’t quite understand why it fell short of legalizing marriage for gays.

[ElvisL1ves]

“The Legislature” is really Speaker Tom Finneran, a total autocrat and a socially-conservative devout Catholic who has already come down strongly against this. In combination with Governor Mitt Romney, a Mormon who is just as strongly opposed, the law to define marriage as one man + one woman will probably come along pretty quickly.

But the ruling and the reasoning behind it remain, and are now out in the open for all to think about, irrespectful of the law. In the longer term, the tide of popular thought that finally decides something is wrong and must be changed is what causes that change. So while this ruling will soon be obsolesced legally, it may still look like a landmark some years in the future.

[XT]

If you think about it, its a travisty that gay marrages are NOT allowed in the US…and that its taken this long to start to beat this issue down. I’ve NEVER heard a rational arguement of why not to allow gay marrages to take place. Its against what America is supposed to be about…life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness. I wish all those homophobes out there would fucking get over it…its not like gay people are going to attempt to forcably convert the heteros or something. Sheesh. Live and let live people…

-XT

[John_Mace]

This is huge.

How soon do you think it’ll be before there is an effort to amend the MA constitution to define marriage as only between one man and one woman? I find it hard to beleive that the fight is over, even if we’re only talking about the situation in one state.

[NurseCarmen]

I hate these wait and see rulings, 180 days for the legislature to do something dumb. Why not just say, “Legislature, I’ll take this obviously over-simple problem off your hands” and give out marriage licenses?

I do like how many stupid right wing laws are blowing up in their faces these days.

[Steve_Wright]

Stripped of its religious origins and implications, a marriage is basically an agreement between two people to behave in a certain way to each other, and to take on certain mutual obligations, in return for which they get certain benefits from the State.

Now, since you have that neat “separation of Church and State” thing in America (which, I have to admit, is kind of a good idea), marriage within US law is already stripped of its religious origins and implications, isn’t it?

So … any law which prevents a same-sex couple from behaving in that certain way, accepting those obligations, and receiving those benefits … any such law, to be constitutional in the US, would have to be based on some legitimate, non-religious reason why a same-sex couple shouldn’t be able to do this, right?

Something tells me that legitimate, non-religious reasons to prevent same-sex marriage are, actually, pretty thin on the ground.

(As a matter of fact, I’m not 100% sure there are legitimate religious reasons to prevent it … you know, given all that tolerance and “love one another” stuff we Christians are supposed to believe in … but that’s not an issue in US law anyway, is it?)

[Patty_O_Furniture]

How soon do you think it’ll be before there is an effort to amend the MA constitution to define marriage as only between one man and one woman?

180 days.

[minty_green]

As I read the Massachusetts Constitution, all it takes for an amendment is a simple majority in each chamber of the legislature and ratification by a simple majority of the voters in the next election.

[John_Mace]

Minty:

I haven’t seen any polls on how MA residents feel about this issue. I believe that nation as a whole is slightly biased in the “anti” column-- something like a few precentage points above 50%. MA, being generally more liberal than the nation as a whole might very well vote down a constitutional amendment.

Of course, what people say to an opinion poll isn’t always the way they’ll vote on a ballot measure. I’m sure we’ll get to see.

[Paco]

Watching Robert Knight on CNN made me think of something. Is anyone else tired of the same people who cry for the gays to get their gay lifestyle out of their faces are the same people who are supporting ex-judge Moore in Alabama for the ten commandments stone? It’s pretty damned hypocrtical.

[Bricker]

But the issue may find a hostile audience in the Massachusetts Legislature, which has been considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The state’s powerful Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran of Boston, has endorsed this proposal. And Republican Gov. Mitt Romney criticizing the ruling, saying: “Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that makes that expressly clear.

Interesting. Is the Massachusetts court telling the legislature to legalize gay marriage or is their ruling forcing a “fix” of the state constitution to eliminate the possibilty of gay marriage?

• Rick

[ElvisL1ves]

The Supreme Judicial Court is telling the Great and General Court (gotta love these old names) to “speak now or forever hold your peace”. They’re not ordering anything (they can’t), just giving Finneran a chance to act to prevent the ruling from taking practical effect.

[XT]

Sort of a ‘put up or shut up’, ElvisL1ves?

[tdn]

*Originally posted by Bricker *
And Republican Gov. Mitt Romney criticizing the ruling, saying: “Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that makes that expressly clear."

Romney, you’re a prick.

What was disheartening was that during the gubanatorial debates last year, the candidates didn’t debate whether homosexuality was evil, but rather how much homosexuality was evil, with both trying to outdo each other. It was the first time I went to the voting booth and looked for the “Fuckemboth” lever.

[Bricker]

Poll finds more oppose gay marriage - 59 percent against it, up 6 points since July.

That’s apparently a national poll - I can’t seem to find anything that reflects a poll solely of Massachusetts.

That same poll found 32 percent in favor of gay marriage and 9 percent answering “Don’t Know,” with an error of +/- 3%.

Given that a simple majority is needed, apparently, to amend the Massachusetts Constitution in the legislature and the electorate, and given the historical examples of Hawaii and Alaska, I wonder if this isn’t cause for conservative celebration.

• Rick

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by John Mace *
I haven’t seen any polls on how MA residents feel about this issue. I believe that nation as a whole is slightly biased in the “anti” column-- something like a few precentage points above 50%.

Not so: “[A] recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll suggest the Supreme Court ruling has prompted a backlash: The number of people who have endorsed the idea that homosexual relations should be legal has dropped from 60 percent to 48 percent since the ruling, and only 40 percent of Americans say they now would support civil unions for homosexuals.” That was in the wake of this spring’s sodomy ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/bush.gay.marriage/

And of course, those who are opposed to legal recognition of homosexual relationships are really opposed. Even as I type, Karl Rove has a stiffie just thinking about what this does to his 2004 voter turnout.

MA, being generally more liberal than the nation as a whole might very well vote down a constitutional amendment.

Maybe so, maybe not. You may want to recall the example of Hawaii, which faced precisely the same situation in the late 90s, and which quickly passed the proposed amendment overriding their state supreme court’s decision.