Goodridge V. Department of Public Health - Reaction

Reaction

Justice Roderick L. Ireland, who voted with the majority, reported receiving threats against his life following the decision.

Opponents of the decision asked federal courts to overrule the decision. A suit filed by a conservative nonprofit organization, Liberty Counsel, on behalf of the Catholic Action League and eleven members of the legislature argued that the Supreme Judicial Court's decision deprived the people of Massachusetts of their right to republican government. U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro denied their request for an injunction delaying implementation of the decision, as did the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case without comment. Other opponents of same-sex marriage formed VoteOnMarriage.org to promote the adoption of an amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage.

Legislators considered an immediate response to the Goodridge decision. When queried by the State Senate, the Supreme Judicial Court advised on February 4, 2004, that "civil unions" would not suffice to satisfy the Court's finding in Goodridge. The 4 justices who formed the majority in the Goodridge decision wrote: "The dissimilitude between the terms 'civil marriage' and 'civil union' is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status." They continued: "For no rational reason the marriage laws of the Commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain." Republican Governor Mitt Romney responded with a statement in support of a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts state constitution 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." The legislature took no immediate action either to implement Goodridge or block its implementation and the state began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on May 17, 2004.

On June 17, 2004, GLAD filed another suit on behalf of eight same-sex couples with ties to Massachusetts, but not residents of the state. It challenged a 1913 law that denied marriage licenses to anyone whose marriage would not be valid in their state of residence. On March 30, 2006, the Supreme Judicial Court upheld the law's application to marriages of same-sex couples in Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health, though the decision was complicated by uncertainty about the recognition of same-sex marriages in New York and Rhode Island. The law was repealed on July 31, 2008.

To amend the state constitution, an amendment needs the endorsement of at least 25% of the members of both houses of the legislature, which meet jointly as a Constitutional Convention at the end of the legislative session. Once a proposed amendment meets that requirement in two consecutive Constitutional Conventions, it is presented to the voters. A proposed amendment failed to receive the necessary 25% on September 14, 2005. The vote was 39 in favor and 157 opposed.

In January 2007, after dramatic, sometimes chaotic debate, more than 25% of the members approved a compromise constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage and create a system of civil unions for same-sex couples. The vote was 62 in favor and 132 opposed. It failed to gain sufficient support when presented to the next Constitutional Convention. The vote on June 14, 2007, was 45 in favor and 151 opposed.