[2] After holding a hearing in March 2002 at which GLAD attorney Jennifer Levi argued on behalf of the plaintiff couples, Superior Court Judge Thomas Connolly ruled in favor of the Department of Health on May 7, 2002.

[4] Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly argued in his brief that the Court should defer to the legislature's judgment of "the broader public interest" and recognize that "same-sex couples cannot procreate on their own and therefore cannot accomplish the 'main object' ... of marriage as historically understood.

"[6] The court stayed the implementation of its ruling for 180 days to allow the state legislature to "take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion.

"[6] Reactions included speculation that the legislature could follow Vermont's example and enact civil unions in that time period, but state Senate President Robert Travaglini said he thought that "the strength of the language and the depth of the decision" showed that marriage and no substitute "is the wish of the court.

"[1] Arthur Miller, a Harvard law professor, said he thought the legislature might exploit the Court's 4–3 division to get it to accept a status much like marriage under another name.

[6][7] Although the arguments and the decision turned entirely on questions of state law, she cited in her discussion of the Court's duty the U.S. Supreme Court's decision the previous June in Lawrence v. Texas that invalidated sodomy laws: "Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach.

She turned the argument against the DPH: "the task of child rearing for same-sex couples is made infinitely harder by their status as outliers to the marriage laws."

Later in the opinion she summarized this analysis, saying the DPH's arguments were "starkly at odds with the comprehensive network of vigorous, gender-neutral laws promoting stable families and the best interests of children.

She reviewed several examples related to marriage, including married women acquiring legal status apart from their husbands, the invalidation of anti-miscegenation laws, and no-fault divorce.

[6]She summarized the Court's decision: The marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason.

[6] Justices Robert J. Cordy, Francis X. Spina, and Martha Sosman filed separate dissents from the Court's ruling.

He continued that "this case is not about government intrusions into matters of personal liberty," but "about whether the State must endorse and support [the choices of same-sex couples] by changing the institution of civil marriage to make its benefits, obligations, and responsibilities applicable to them.

But that does not mean that the State is required to provide identical forms of encouragement, endorsement, and support to all of the infinite variety of household structures that a free society permits."

She concluded that "[a]s a matter of social history, [the majority] opinion may represent a great turning point that many will hail as a tremendous step toward a more just society.

[8] In his January 20 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush alluded to events in Massachusetts: "Activist judges ... have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives.

On December 11, 2003, the State Senate asked the SJC whether establishing civil unions for same-sex couples would meet the ruling's requirements.

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.

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 had deprived the people of Massachusetts of their right to a "Republican Form of Government" as guaranteed by Article IV of the U.S. Constitution when it refused to stay its decision to allow for a referendum to amend the state constitution.

[18] Opponents of same-sex marriage sought to reverse the Goodridge decision by amending the state constitution, an extended process in Massachusetts requiring repeated approval by the legislature before being put to a popular vote.

[21] On the fifth anniversary of the Goodridge decision, Mary Bonauto, who argued the case for GLAD, said that state agencies were cooperating fully with its requirements, noting that exceptions occurred in programs that received federal funding and were therefore subject to the restrictions of the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

For example:[26] Civil marriage 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 fulfills 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.The plaintiffs were Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies; Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade; Hillary Goodridge and Julie Goodridge; Gary Chalmers and Richard Linnell; Heidi Norton and Gina Smith; Michael Horgan and Edward Balmelli; and David Wilson and Robert Compton.