Hillary Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health

Legal decision

By: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Date: November 18, 2003

Source: Hillary Coodridge & others vs. Department of Public Health & another. SJC-08860. Available at: The Massachusetts Court System. 〈http://www.mass. gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/goodridge.html〉 (accessed March 14, 2006).

About the Author: The Massachusetts Court System is the judicial network for the state of Massachusetts, United States. It comprises a network of courts arranged in order of hierarchy. At the bottom of the pyramid are the trial courts, followed by the Appeals courts, and then the Supreme Judicial Court. The trial court is a group of various courts that includes the Superior Court, District Court, Juvenile Court, Probate and Family Court, Housing Court, Land Court, and the Boston Municipal Court. Cases that are not settled at the trial courts are referred to the Appeals courts. The Supreme Judicial Court is the highest court in the state of Massachusetts. Established in 1692, it is the oldest operating court in the Western Hemisphere.

INTRODUCTION

According to legal norms and traditions worldwide, marriage usually means a union between a man and a woman. The institution of marriage endows significant social and legal responsibilities upon the husband and wife toward the society and the state. The definition of marriage varies for legal and social reasons across different cultures and societies. Marriage law in the United States is essentially a state matter, and the specifics of marriage law vary from state to state.

In the past few decades, the issue of same-sex marriage has gained considerable prominence in the United States and the world. Same-sex marriages in the United States face a fundamental battle of opinion between those who believe in traditional marriages and those who advocate basic liberties, such as civil rights, privacy, fair treatment of both sexes, and equality before law.

Although same-sex marriage has always faced stiff opposition, there have been cases in which some rights were granted to gay and lesbian couples. However, in most cases these rights were later revoked. For instance, in 1975, two men in Phoenix, Arizona, were granted a marriage license. The license was later withdrawn. At the same time, Arizona laws were tightened to prohibit marriage between same-sex couples.

In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the legislature could not stop gay and lesbian couples from marrying unless it found a convincing reason against such unions. In 1998, the Hawaii constitution was amended restricting marriage to the union of a man and a woman. Also in 1998, a similar issue was referred to the Supreme Court of Alaska; the court decided in favor of the plaintiff, declaring that the state must show a compelling reason for declining a same-sex marriage license to the plaintiffs. Later that year, the Alaska constitution also was amended by voters to prohibit same-sex marriages.

In September 1996, then U.S. President Bill Clinton signed a federal law called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). According to this law, marriage is a legal union between a man and a woman. The law further defines a spouse as a person of the opposite sex bound in the union of marriage. This Act gave states the power to deny the status of marriage to same-sex couples who entered into a union in other states.

Subsequently, gay marriage activists have filed lawsuits against government organizations and other institutions, seeking legalization of gay marriage. As mentioned earlier, these lawsuits were largely unsuccessful. An exception was the lawsuit filed in Massachusetts, in April 2001, by the Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD)—a rights organization representing seven gay and lesbian couples.

The primary source reproduced below is a synopsis prepared by the court reporter, detailing the decision taken by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in this lawsuit—Hillary Goodridge & others vs. Department of Public Health and another. It describes the court's ruling on the issue, based on the provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of same-sex civil marriages in the state of Massachusetts. It also entitled people of the same gender to obtain civil marriage licenses. Following this ruling, Massachusetts became the only state in the United States to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.

PRIMARY SOURCE

The Supreme Judicial Court held today 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." The court stayed the entry of judgment for 180 days "to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."

"Marriage is a vital social institution," wrote Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall for the majority of the Justices. "The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In turn it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations." The question before the court was "whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution," the Commonwealth could deny those protections, benefits, and obligations to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.

In ruling that the Commonwealth could not do so, the court observed that the Massachusetts Constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals," and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens." It reaches its conclusion, the court said, giving "full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth." The Commonwealth, the court ruled, "has failed to identify any constitutionality adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples."

The court affirmed that it owes "great deference to the Legislature to decide social and policy issues." Where, as here, the constitutionality of a law is challenged, it is the "traditional and settled role" of courts to decide the constitutional question. 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 orientation.

The court rejected the Commonwealth's claim that the primary purpose of marriage was procreation. Rather, the history of the marriage laws in the Commonwealth demonstrates that "it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of marriage."

The court remarked that its decision "does not disturb the fundamental value of marriage in our society." "That same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage's solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support, and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit," the court stated.

The opinion reformulates the common-law definition of civil marriage to mean "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others." Noting that "civil marriage has long been termed a 'civil right,'" the court concluded that "the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice, subject to appropriate government restrictions in the interests of public health, safety, and welfare."

Justices John M. Greaney, Roderick L. Ireland, and Judith A. Cowin joined in the court's opinion. Justice Greaney also filed a separate concurring opinion.

Justices Francis X. Spina, Martha B. Sosman, and Robert J. Cordy each filed separate dissenting opinions.

Justice Greaney concurred "with the result reached by the court, the remedy ordered, and much of the reasoning in the court's opinion," but expressed the view that "the case is more directly resolved using traditional equal protection analysis." He stated that to withhold "relief from the plaintiffs, who wish to marry, and are otherwise eligible to marry, on the ground that the couples are of the same gender, constitutes a categorical restriction of a fundamental right." Moreover, Justice Greaney concluded that such a restriction is impermissible under art. 1 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. In so doing, Justice Greaney did not rely on art. 1, as amended in 1976, because the voters' intent in passing the amendment was clearly not to approve gay marriage, but he relied on well-established principles of equal protection that antedated the amendment.

Justice Cordy, with whom Justice Spina and Justice Sosman joined, dissented on the ground that the marriage statute, as historically interpreted to mean the union of one man and one woman, does not violate the Massachusetts Constitution because "the Legislature could rationally conclude that it furthers the legitimate State purpose of ensuring, promoting, and supporting an optimal social structure for the bearing and raising of children." Justice Cordy stated that the court's conclusions to the contrary are unsupportable in light of "the presumption of constitutional validity and significant deference afforded to legislative enactments, and the undesirability of the judiciary substituting its notion of cor-rect policy for that of a popularly elected legislature responsible for making it." Further, Justice Cordy stated that "[w]hile the Massachusetts Constitution protects matters of personal liberty against government intrusion at least as zealously and often more so than does the Federal Constitution, this case is not about government intrusions into matters of personal liberty," but "about whether the State must endorse and support [the choices of same-sex couples] by changing the institution of civil marriage to make its benefits, obligations, and responsibilities applicable to them." Justice Cordy concluded that, although the plaintiffs had made a powerful case for the extension of the benefits and burdens of civil marriage to same-sex couples, the issue "is one deeply rooted in social policy" and "that decision must be made by the Legislature, not the court."

Justice Spina, in a separately filed dissenting opinion, stated that "[W]hat is at stake in this case is not the unequal treatment of individuals or whether individuals' rights have been impermissibly burdened, but the power of the Legislature to effectuate social change without interference from the courts, pursuant to art. 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights." He emphasized that the "power to regulate marriage lies with the Legislature, not with the judiciary."

Justice Sosman, in a separately filed dissenting opinion, stated that "the issue is not whether the Legislature's rationale behind [the statutory scheme being challenged] is persuasive to [the court]," but whether it is "rational" for the Legislature to "reserve judgment" on whether changing the definition of marriage "can be made at this time without damaging the institution of marriage or adversely affecting the critical role it has played in our society." She concluded that, "[a]bsent consensus on the issue (which obviously does not exist), or unanimity amongst scientists studying the issue (which also does not exist), or a more prolonged period of observation of this new family structure (which has not yet been possible), it is rational for the Legislature to postpone any redefinition of marriage that would include same-sex couples until such time as it is certain that redefinition will not have unintended and undesirable social consequences."

SIGNIFICANCE

In the United States, as in many countries worldwide, the issue of same-sex marriage has been increasingly in the public eye and, since the 1970s, there has been a movement seeking legal and social benefits for same-sex couples. Proponents of same-sex marriage state that it should be constituted as a fundamental civil right, whereas critics argue that marriage should be only between two people of the opposite sex. Although the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling is a legal landmark, since it legalized samesex marriages in the state, not much has changed in other parts of the U.S. since the ruling was handed down. As of 2006, Massachusetts is still the only state to allow same-sex marriages. In addition, legal experts maintain that the future of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is uncertain, since there has been intense lobbying to ban it.

Since the early 2000s, more states have passed laws preventing gay and lesbian marriages. Despite this fact, there have been instances when these laws have been ignored. In February 2004, under the direction of San Francisco's mayor to bypass the state law, hundreds of same sex couples from all over the United States obtained marriage licenses. Subsequently, however, the Supreme Court of California revoked these licenses, citing the illegal nature of the action.

Many individuals, civil rights groups, and politicians have taken sides on the issue of same-sex marriage. Major civil rights organizations like the Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples, the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders have been campaigning vigorously to legalize same-sex marriages. Federal and state laws make more than 1,000 statutory rights and benefits available to married couples. These rights include the application of federal inheritance laws, social security benefits, the right to unpaid leave to care for a family member, the ability to file joint tax return, and so on. Various groups and individuals, such as those mentioned above, have been pressing for these rights to be extended to gay and lesbian couples.

On the other hand, many prominent individuals and religious organizations are against same-sex marriages. In his presidential campaign of 2004, President George W. Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages, but left it on the states to decide on civil unions and domestic partnerships. Civil unions, which were first legalized in Vermont (in 2000) and later in Connecticut (in 2005), provide same-sex couples with some of the rights enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. However, as of 2006, civil unions have yet to be approved and accepted by other states.

According to a survey by CNN, younger Americans tend to favor the legalization of same-sex marriages, whereas older Americans and the residents of more conservative states are against same-sex marriages. This issue remains a controversial social and political topic in the United States with nearly half of the population reportedly against such marriages and the other half in favor of them.

FURTHER RESOURCES

Web sites

BBC News. "The Gay Marriage Map." 〈http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3516551.stm〉 (accessed March 14, 2006).

Center for Health Statistics. "California Marriage License, Registration and Ceremony Information." 〈http://www.dhs.ca.gov/hisp/chs/OVR/Marriage/GeneralInfo.htm〉 (accessed March 14, 2006).

CNN.com. "Same-sex Marriage Laws Across the United States." 〈http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/05/25/same.sex.marriages/〉 (accessed March 14, 2006).

――――――. "Massachusetts Court Rules Ban on Gay Marriage Unconstitutional." 〈http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/〉 (accessed March 14, 2006).

――――――. "States Determine Marriage Laws." 〈http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/states.marriage.laws/〉 (accessed March 14, 2006).

Human Rights Campaign. "Frequently Asked Questions: Goodridge et al. v. The Department of Public Health." 〈http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Issues1/Marriage/FAQ_Goodridge.htm〉 (accessed March 14, 2006).

Thomas.gov. "Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Relating to Marriage. (Introduced in Senate)" 〈http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/∼1098H0WZa::〉 (accessed March 14, 2006).

U.S. Congress. "The Defense of Marriage Act/Public Law 104-199 Defense of Marriage Act (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President))." 〈http://www.indiana.edu/∼lbtpol/doma.html〉 (accessed March 14, 2006).