In a landmark decision made on Tuesday, the Massachusetts Supreme Court made its state the first in the union to give same-sex couples the legal right to marriage. The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) gave the Massachusetts state legislature 180 days to figure out how to regulate and enact this new ruling. Because the ruling was made by the SJC, the state's highest authority on the state constitution, the ruling cannot be overturned by the Massachusetts state legislature.
It is amazing, yet at the same time discouraging, that only two states (the other being Vermont) have realized that denying the protection, benefits, and obligations given by civil marriage to all citizens creates inequality, and is unconstitutional.
Despite differing religious and ethical beliefs, it should be clear from the US Constitution that all citizens should be granted the same legal, financial, and social rights, regardless of their sexual preferences. It is clear from recent legislation, such as the ruling by the US Supreme Court in June regarding the anti-sodomy laws in Texas, that the government is starting to finally make changes.
Opponents of the decision will not have the opportunity to block the ruling until 2006, when they will be able to file a constitutional amendment against it. It will be interesting to see how the US Congress reacts to the Massachusetts ruling. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, also known as Super DOMA, in 1996. It defined marriage as between a man and a woman, and denied various federal rights to same sex couples.
The Massachusetts ruling differs significantly from a previous ruling in Vermont, made in 1999, that allows same-sex couples to have civil unions. The Vermont decision left the issue open as to whether civil unions would be considered marriage, or a separate institution equal to marriage.
In contrast, Judge Marshall of the Massachusetts SJC definitively ruled that there is no legal reason in the Massachusetts state constitution to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. In addition, Marshall wrote in the ruling that the Commonwealth, in denying civil marriage to same-sex couples, would in effect be creating second-class citizens.
Both recent court decisions must now be carefully examined, as both have the potential to influence other states's decisions when similar legislation in favor of gay marriage or against it comes to the forefront. Now that civil unions and marriage have each been established as institutions through which same-sex couples can gain the same rights as heterosexual couples, the significance of the title of marriage must be called into question.
Many religious groups and proponents of Super DOMA claim that marriage is a historical and religious institution that should not be changed. The Family Research Council, one of the leading opponents of same-sex marriage, states that same-sex marriage would be harmful to society. One of the reasons stated against same-sex marriage is that these couples cannot rear offspring. The FRC also claims that homosexual couples who adopt children will raise them in a negative and unhealthy environment.
Proponents of same-sex marriage, such as the organization Freedom to Marry, argue that "Civil marriage is a powerful and important affirmation of love, a source of social recognition and support, and the legal gateway to a vast array of protections, responsibilities, and benefits, most of which cannot be replicated in any other way."
It seems that to deny same-sex couples the right to civil unions and the rights allotted to married couples would go against the basic principles on which our country stands, namely that all men are created equal. However, in light of the arguments of both the proponents and opponents of gay marriage, and the two separate decisions about same-sex unions, a different issue must now be examined.
We must now focus on whether separate but equal institutions should be created so that the institution of marriage as defined religiously and historically as a union between a man and a women should remain, or if the banning of same sex couples from using the legal title of marriage would in effect again treat same-sex couples as second class citizens.
Malka Jampol is a sophomore from Waban, Mass.
