# Massachusetts Supreme Court rules ban on gay marriage unconstitutional **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [November 18, 2003, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massachusetts-supreme-court-rules-ban-on-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/213911 "2003-11-18T15:32:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![lno](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a8b319/32.png) [@lno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lno)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massachusetts-supreme-court-rules-ban-on-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/213911/1 "2003-11-18T15:32:27Z")
[The article:](http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/index.html) > [@](#): > > 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.” > … > But the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law, and gave the state Legislature 180 days to find a solution, The Associated Press reported. One state at a time. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massachusetts-supreme-court-rules-ban-on-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/213911/2 "2003-11-18T15:43:28Z")
This is welcome news, and not unexpected. The ruling from what I glean from the link mirrors the one issued in Vermont. The court did not rule that the state has to allow same-sex marriage; it ruled that the benefits of marriage can’t be denied to same-sex couples. There are already competing bills in the Mass legislature on the issue. Some would ban SSM by statute; some would legalize it; some would legalize civil unions/domestic partnerships; one would amend the state constitution to ban SSM (which requires a lengthy process and can’t happen any earlier than 2006). I’m thinking we’re going to see another Vermont situation here, where civil unions get the nod. It’ll be an interesting six months in the legislature… ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massachusetts-supreme-court-rules-ban-on-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/213911/3 "2003-11-18T16:17:05Z")
[The decisions](http://weblinks.westlaw.com/Search/default.wl?RP=%2FWelcome%2FFrameless%2FSearch%2Ewl&n=2&ACTION=SEARCH&bhcp=1&CFID=0&DB=MA%2DORSLIP&ErrHost=EG%2DWIRELS%2DB02&FN=%5Ftop&Method=TNC&query=to%28allsct+allsctrs+allsctoj%29+&RLT=CLID%5FQRYRLT17441811&rs=MAOR1%2E0&sp=MassOF%2D1001&strRecreate=no&sv=Split&vr=1%2E0&serialnum=2003847757) Hope I haven’t screwed up the coding. It’s hard to type with my eyes full of tears. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Man\_With\_The\_Golden\_Gun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@The\_Man\_With\_The\_Golden\_Gun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Man_With_The_Golden_Gun)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massachusetts-supreme-court-rules-ban-on-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/213911/4 "2003-11-18T16:23:42Z")
And, of course, the first thing I do is head on over to [godhatesfags.com](http://godhatesfags.com) to see what ol’ Phred has to say about this. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massachusetts-supreme-court-rules-ban-on-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/213911/5 "2003-11-18T16:56:03Z")
Flippin’ w00t!! _applause_ So does the court have the authority to enforce the right to marry, if the legislature refuses to comply, as the courts here do? ---
**Author:** ![andygirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a9adbd/32.png) [@andygirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andygirl)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massachusetts-supreme-court-rules-ban-on-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/213911/6 "2003-11-18T17:10:08Z")
One hopes that they don’t take the coward’s way out like Vermont did. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massachusetts-supreme-court-rules-ban-on-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/213911/7 "2003-11-18T17:14:27Z")
AS long as DOMA remains on the books, this will have to remain a moral victory only. Still, you go, Mass. Supreme Court! ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massachusetts-supreme-court-rules-ban-on-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/213911/8 "2003-11-18T17:15:52Z")
This is good news indeed but we still have a ways to go. This will certainly get appealed, first to Federal Appeals Court and then to the Supreme Court. Stay tuned. Haj ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massachusetts-supreme-court-rules-ban-on-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/213911/9 "2003-11-18T17:21:14Z")
I don’t think it can be appealed through federal courts hajario, since the ruling is that the _state_ constitution forbids the ban. ---
**Author:** ![andygirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a9adbd/32.png) [@andygirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andygirl)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massachusetts-supreme-court-rules-ban-on-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/213911/10 "2003-11-18T17:22:46Z")
But it wasn’t federal, it was state. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massachusetts-supreme-court-rules-ban-on-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/213911/11 "2003-11-18T18:04:04Z")
> [@](#): > > So does the court have the authority to enforce the right to marry, if the legislature refuses to comply, as the courts here do? The court has the authority to order the state to issue marriage licenses in accordance with its ruling, but has stayed its decision in the case for six months to allow the legislature to act in accordance with the ruling. > [@](#): > > AS long as DOMA remains on the books, this will have to remain a moral victory only. I’m not sure why you would view this only as a moral victory. It’s impossible to challenge DOMA until someone has standing. The only way someone’s going to get standing is for a state to recognize same-sex marriage. If that is the ultimate result here, then married couples in Mass and couples who marry in Mass and return to their own state gain the necessary standing to mount the challenge. > [@](#): > > This is good news indeed but we still have a ways to go. This will certainly get appealed, first to Federal Appeals Court and then to the Supreme Court. Stay tuned. The challenge was to the law of the state and was brought under the state constitution in state court. The federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from either side. ---
**Author:** ![Grelby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a5b964/32.png) [@Grelby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grelby)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massachusetts-supreme-court-rules-ban-on-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/213911/12 "2003-11-18T22:52:14Z")
The federal court would not presume to interpret a state’s constitution. As an ideological victory, this decision WILL stand, and if my state does take the coward’s route of civil unions (mealy-mouthed bullshit, that) the legal precedent nonetheless stands. No matter what happens, that cannot be erased. ---
**Author:** ![Lucki\_Chaarms](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lucki\_Chaarms](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucki_Chaarms)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massachusetts-supreme-court-rules-ban-on-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/213911/13 "2003-11-19T00:57:24Z")
Hey, a few more years and we’ll be full-fledged real people! OK, I’m not nearly cynical enough to actually pull of not being happy as hell about this. Congratulations, everyone, let’s keep the ball rolling. LC ---
**Author:** ![Call\_me\_Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Call\_me\_Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Call_me_Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massachusetts-supreme-court-rules-ban-on-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/213911/14 "2003-11-19T03:09:48Z")
I’m glad for this ruling as well, I’m not gay, but I think legislating who can marry whom is ridiculous. And what I don’t get is that republicans are generally the ones who vehemently oppose same sex marriage, and this just doesn’t make sense to me. The republican party is well-known for it’s desire to keep the federal government out of their state. They don’t want the US gov. coming into their state and telling them what to do, it seems. However, they don’t seem to have a problem with coming into youre _bedroom_ and telling you what you can and cannot do and with whom you can and cannot do it! Sorry for the slight rant, but I had to get that off my chest… ---
**Author:** ![elfbabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b782af/32.png) [@elfbabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfbabe)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massachusetts-supreme-court-rules-ban-on-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/213911/15 "2003-11-19T05:44:12Z")
Honestly, I can’t do anything but worry that this will just help the cause of things like a constitutional amendment defining marriage. I’m turning into such a pessimists. ---
**Author:** ![elfbabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b782af/32.png) [@elfbabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfbabe)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massachusetts-supreme-court-rules-ban-on-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/213911/16 "2003-11-19T05:44:17Z")
Honestly, I can’t do anything but worry that this will just help the cause of things like a constitutional amendment defining marriage. I’m turning into such a pessimist. ---
**Author:** ![JasonFin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/4af34b/32.png) [@JasonFin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JasonFin)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massachusetts-supreme-court-rules-ban-on-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/213911/17 "2003-11-19T06:05:24Z")
I think this is terrible news for the gay rights movement. It will provoke an all-out confrontation with the forces of bigotry before we have the numbers to win. Right now, opposition to gay marriage is still strong enough that the Federal Marriage Amendment, which bans gay marriage and could be interpreted to ban same-sex civil unions as well, has a good chance of passing. Numerous polls have shown that young people are far more likely to endorse gay marriage than the elderly. If this issue could have been kept on the back-burner for another fifteen years or so, simple demographics would ensure that the pro-marriage forces would be in a far stronger position. As it is, I am very afraid for the future.