This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Goodridge v. Department of Public Health is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:
Related Sponsors
| Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
|||||||||
| Argued March 4, 2003 Decided November 18, 2003 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| Holding | |||||||||
| The denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated provisions of the state constitution guaranteeing individual liberty and equality, and was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Superior Court of Massachusetts at Suffolk vacated and remanded. | |||||||||
| Court membership | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
| Case opinions | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
| Laws applied | |||||||||
| Mass. Const. arts. 1, 6, 7, and 10, and Part II, c. 1, § 1, art. 4; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 207 |
Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003), was a landmark state appellate court case dealing with same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.
Contents |
Ruling
In a 50-page, 4–3 ruling delivered on November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry." Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, writing for the majority, wrote that the state's constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals" and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens" and that the state had no "constitutionally adequate reason" for denying marriage to same-sex couples. On the legal aspect, instead of creating a new fundamental right to marry, or more accurately the right to choose to marry, the Court held that the State does not have a rational basis to deny same-sex couples from marriage on the ground of due process and equal protection.
The court gave the State Legislature 180 days to change the law to rectify the situation.
Political response
Republican Governor Mitt Romney responded by releasing a statement in support of a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts state constitution defining marriage as existing only between "one man and one woman" in order to overrule the court's decision. His statement said, "the people of Massachusetts should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of marriage." This message was taken up by VoteOnMarriage.org but their initiative failed.
The legislature engaged in a contentious debate about how and whether to propose an amendment to the state's constitution in response to Goodridge. Some legislators wanted to create a system of civil unions, some wanted a ban on civil unions, some wanted a ban on same-sex marriage, and some wanted to do nothing (in other words, to let the court's decision stand). A joint session of the State legislature convened near the end of the 2003–04 session to discuss Goodridge. After a dramatic, sometimes chaotic, multi-sided debate, a narrow majority of legislators approved a compromise constitutional amendment proposal, prohibiting same-sex marriage but simultaneously creating a system of civil unions for same-sex couples. Massachusetts law requires that a legislative amendment be approved by a joint session in 2 consecutive sessions, and the same proposal failed during the 2005–06 session 1, and hence was not put before voters in the November 2006 election.
Status outside Massachusetts
Although marriages in the United States are typically valid across state lines, most states do not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries. Some legal scholars have argued that such marriages must be recognized under the "full faith and credit" clause of the federal Constitution, however, currently very few states recognize same-sex marriages from Massachusetts.
Subsequent separation of the Goodridges
Two of the original plaintiffs in the case, the couple that the case is named after and cited by, Julie and Hillary Goodridge, subsequently amicably separated in July 2006, according to their spokesperson.234
References
- ^ Boston Globe article about failure of legislative amendment
- ^ Levenson, Michael (July 21, 2006). "After 2 years, same-sex marriage icons split up: Were plaintiffs in landmark case", Boston Globe, Boston Globe. Retrieved on 8 June 2007.
- ^ Zezima, Katie (July 22, 2006). "Same-Sex Marriage Plaintiffs Separate", New York Times, pp. A11. Retrieved on 7 June 2007.
- ^ Rosenberg, Eva. TAXWATCH: Same-sex Couples Face Complex Questions When Doing Their Taxes Marketwatch/Dow Jones February 9, 2007. Retrieved March 16, 2007. (See near the end of the article, in the section "Divorce disasters")
External links
- Unofficial synopsis and text of the decision from the Massachusetts court system website.
Wikipedia content modification information:
- This page was last modified on 11 October 2008, at 05:40.
Wikipedia Authorship and Review
Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.
Wikipedia Usage Guidelines
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Goodridge v. Department of Public Health".
The URL for this specific entry is:
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.