Opinions Of The Justices To The Senat

802 N.E.2d 565 (Mass. 2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N.E.2d 941 (2003) the court concluded that the Commonwealth had failed to articulate a rational basis for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples. In so concluding, the court enumerated some of the concrete, tangible benefits that flow from civil marriage, including, but not limited to, rights in property, probate, tax, and evidence law that are conferred on married couples. The court also noted that 'intangible benefits flow from marriage,' intangibles that are important components of marriage as a 'civil right.' The court stated that 'marriage also bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry . . . [and] is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family.' 'Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition.' Therefore, without the right to choose to marry, same-sex couples are not only denied full protection of the laws but are 'excluded from the full range of human experience.' The court stated that the denial of civil marital status 'works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason.' These omnipresent hardships include, but are by no means limited to, the absence of predictable rules of child support and property division, and even uncertainty concerning whether one will be allowed to visit one's sick child or one's partner in a hospital. The Goodridge decision by the court made no reference to the concept of 'civil unions,' nor did the separate concurring opinion of Justice Greaney. In Goodridge, the court preserved the marriage licensing statute, but refined the common-law definition of civil marriage to mean 'the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others.' The state legislature responded by creating a bill that would give same sex couples the right to civil unions but not to marriage. The legislature asked for the court’s legal opinion regarding such a right.