Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts

Mayor Thomas Menino's attempt to extend health care benefits to Boston city employees' domestic partners by executive order was successfully challenged by the Catholic Action League in court.

The chair of the Lesbian and Gay Political Alliance of Massachusetts said its prospects for passage were slim but it could serve as a countervailing proposal to efforts at establishing civil unions or providing benefits to same-sex partners of state and local government employees.

[22][23][24] Alongside these legislative maneuvers, the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed a lawsuit in state court challenging the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples in April 2001.

[31] Senate President Tom Birmingham, an opponent of the amendment, called a joint meeting of the General Court as a constitutional convention for June 19, 2002, and immediately adjourned it for a month saying legislators needed for time to consider the agenda items.

"[33] Arlene Isaacson of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus later explained it was a critical moment because same-sex marriage had no chance of winning a popular vote at the time: "Not that we would lose by a little, because that wasn't an issue.

[36] The four Roman Catholic bishops of Massachusetts, long distracted by the revelations of the sexual abuse of minors by priests, did not address the issue until late May, when they ordered pastors to read and publish a statement to mobilize their parishioners to contact their legislators to urge then to support the constitutional amendment.

[37] Seven same-sex couples represented by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) initiated a lawsuit in state court, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, on April 11, 2001.

"[1] In a widely quoted passage from the majority ruling, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote:[40] 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.

He also backed an amendment to the State Constitution to define marriage as "the union of a man and a woman" while also providing by statute "basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to same-sex couples and other nontraditional relationships.

Brian Camenker, head of the Parents Rights Coalition, said: "As Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out in his letter from the Birmingham jail, there are some laws that are so unnatural that you have an obligation to openly defy them.

"[45] On December 11, 2003, the Massachusetts Senate put forward legislative language creating civil unions for same-sex couples to the SJC, asking if it satisfied the court's requirements.

It called the difference between the terms marriage and civil union "a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status."

[50] Without coming to agreement on how to proceed, legislative leaders considered several legal options, including passing statutes to delay the implementation of Goodridge, a strategy outlined by Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School, until a referendum on a constitutional amendment could be held in November 2006.

[52] Advocates of same-sex marriage, who had been far outnumbered as demonstrators two years earlier, were a large and constant presence in the House of Representatives throughout the 2004 convention, coordinated by MassEquality, an umbrella organization formed to respond to the public backlash against Goodridge.

[54] The General Court met in joint session as a constitutional convention on February 11, and after six hours of debate rejected two amendments, one proposed by House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran and the other by Senate President Robert Travaglini.

Romney believed the vote justified asking the SJC to stay its ruling requiring the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples on May 17, but Attorney General Thomas Reilly said there was no legal basis for making that request.

[66] Despite Romney's urging, Attorney General Reilly refused to ask the SJC to stay its decision, saying that implementation was not problematic and that a popular vote on a constitutional amendment was the only way to resolve the issue.

[79] On May 4, when the Romney Administration began training clerks to handle applications from same-sex couples, a report from The Boston Globe called it "a major shift from the governor's earlier stance on enforcing limitations on licensing gay marriage."

[87] Rejecting the Romney's insistence that the 1913 statute be respected, Somerville Mayor Joseph Curtatone addressed a crowd of same-sex couples that included several from New York gathered in front of Town Hall at 8 am.

"[91] President George W. Bush took note of these events in Massachusetts with a statement calling for a federal constitutional amendment "defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and a woman as husband and wife."

[100] State Senator Brian Lees, a Republican who co-sponsored the amendment in the previous convention, explained why he withdrew his support: "Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry.

[109] As that date neared, Arline Isaacson, a lobbyist for the Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, was not optimistic about her side's chances and Senate President Robert Travaglini was considering allowing a vote to adjourn without acting on the measure.

[113] He filed the lawsuit as one member of a group of private citizens on November 24, citing 5 occasions in 24 years in which the General Court failed to vote on valid initiatives.

Today's discussion and holding on the meaning of the duty lays any doubt to rest... Those members who now seek to avoid their lawful obligations, by a vote to recess without a roll call vote by yeas and nays on the merits of the initiative amendment ... ultimately will have to answer to the people who elected them.He explained that the court could take no action against the plaintiffs in the case: "[T]here is no presently articulated judicial remedy for the Legislature's indifference to, or defiance of, its constitutional duties.

"[121] When the General Court met as a constitutional convention in June 2007, observers anticipated a closer vote than the previous January because of retirements and some announced changes in position.

[123][124] The day before the convention, the state's four Roman Catholic bishops in a letter to legislators endorsed putting the issue to a popular vote: "[T]he marriage debate should not be reserved only to lawyers and lawmakers.

Historians and legal scholars believe it originated in an upsurge of anti-miscegenation sentiment associated with the notoriety of champion boxer Jack Johnson's marriages to white women.

I'm pleased the Commonwealth has already recognized same-sex marriages in our state, and with today's Supreme Court decision every American citizen across the nation will have equal protection under the law and the right to marry the person they choose."

Senator Ed Markey said, "With this momentous ruling from the Supreme Court we end a chapter of discrimination in our country's history and start a new one that says all Americans have the right to pursue happiness by marrying the person they love.

Many of these cultures recognized two-spirit individuals who were born male but wore women's clothing and performed everyday household work and artistic handiwork which were regarded as belonging to the feminine sphere.