Marriage is a vital social institution. 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 return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.
We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.
(via InstaPundit)
UPDATE: Decision link changed to something that actually works.
Well it looks like things are going to get interesting in congress next year based on this http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031118-4.html “target=”new”>statement.
Hey!
I’ve got an idea…lets pass an amendment that restricts a group of peoples rights and freedoms!
That’ll shown ’em.
Coming around here asking to be given the same rights as the Majority.
How dare they!
I’m feeling particularly hypertensive about some of the rhetoric I heard about this on the way home, so I think I’ll refrain from comment, except to say that I think people in fifty years will look at this era they way we look today back at the Jim Crow era in the south, with the same shameful incredulity.
Of course, who’d’ve thought that I’d find myself standing with Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun, and Dennis Kucinich? Yeesh.
I think the most telling section of the portion you quote is this: “The [Massachusetts] Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens.”
How do you argue that? How do you not apply it as well to the U.S. Constitution? How do you argue that for a second-class citizen?
That’s me, though, and everyone knows I oversimply political issues.
No, I think it comes down to something just as simple as that.
Equal Protection Under the Law. What a concept.
I’m a little fuzzy on this, so help me along. The Massachusetts Suprene Court has gtiven the Mass. Legislative body 180 days to come up with legislation concerning same sex marraiges. What will happen if the legislative body, for whatever reason, does nothing to act on the court order? Or what if they disagree with the courts findings? I guess my quetion comes down to: what enforcement does the court have to make the legislative body act?
The Court could have provided immediate relief (Thou Shallt Issue a Marriage Certificate). What it did do is say, “Here’s what the law and the state constitution allow/require. You’re out of compliance. You have 180 days to either change the law to meet the constitutional requirements, or change the constitution to make the law okay.”
What happens if the governor and legislature tell the Mass. SJC to pound sand? Well, that’s an interesting question, and I heard some commentators actually suggesting that. In theory, the SJC could start issuing licenses in response to petition. It could hold the state government in contempt (would anyone arrest the offenders?). I don’t know if it could refuse to hear other pleadings from the state in other cases, though that would be interesting.
Ultimately, it would be up to the citizenry of the state to decide whether scofflaws should be reelected (or even, if Mass. law provides for it, impeached).
I’m not quite “up” on the political climate in Mass, but what if the citizenry sides with the Gov? Has there ever been a recall (I don’t think there can be since this is not an elected office), impeachment, or other action taken against a state supreme court?
I think it varies from state whether supreme court justices can be recalled or not. (I seem to recall it happened in California a while back.)
Short of that — if there’s no poitical will from the executive and legislative branches to enforce the SJC’s ruling, it won’t be enforced. If the citizenry decides that’s not a bad thing, then the executives and legislators won’t get voted out next time out. It’s a dangerous course to take, but it’s an informal check/balance in the system.
The only wild card is if somehow the Feds get pulled into the matter. In theory, since it is a matter of Mass. state law and constitution, I can’t think of a basis for federal intervention, but stranger things have happened, even in supposedly pro-federalist administrations.