The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that full and equal marriage rights for gay couples would be constitutional, virtually assuring that the nation's first same-sex marriages could be granted as early as May.
The court's ruling comes on the heals of a Massachusetts constitutional convention scheduled for Wednesday, where the state legislature will consider an amendment that would effectively ban gay marriage by defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
In November, the Massachusetts court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, and ordered the legislature to change state laws to guarantee that right within six months. In that case, the plaintiffs argued that denying homosexuals marriage rights violated basic constitutional rights and denied an intrinsic human experience.
The court issued Wednesday's opinion after the state Senate questioned whether its response to November's ruling could be in the form of civil unions, which guarantee the same rights of marriage by a different title.
The November ruling shook the nation's conservatives, and President Bush retaliated by proposing over a billion dollars be spent to promote traditional heterosexual marriage in his State of the Union address last month. At that time the President also suggested he would support a Constitutional amendment to assure the "sanctity of marriage." Bush called Wednesday's ruling "troubling."
Students for Bush executive committee member Russell Sample '04 reacted to the ruling, saying "The Massachusetts ruling is just another example of activist judges circumventing representative institutions to legislate from the bench."
Bruce Gago '05, the publicist for the College Republicans, believes personally that it's "repugnant to think that the Massachusetts Supreme Court is turning its back on thousands of years of history." Gago notes that judicial coercion of a legislature is "illegal," and maintains the same for gay marriage generally.
Other states, including Vermont, have circumvented the controversy of gay marriage by allowing civil unions, essentially a parallel relationship conveying the same rights and benefits of marriage without the traditional title.
The Massachusetts ruling, though, argues such unions would make for "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples" and added that "the history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."
Those sentiments were echoed by Pamela Misener, Assistant Dean of Student Life and Advisor to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Students. Misener acknowledged the Massachusetts ruling was a step forward, but that much progress was due. When asked what the reaction of the Dartmouth gay and lesbian community would be to a possible conservative retaliation, perhaps in the form of a constitutional amendment, Misener responded that she would expect activism and protest. "The Constitution has never been used to limit the rights of individuals," said Misener. "We cannot eliminate the rights of certain individuals."
There are many potential problems with the interaction of the court and legislation in Massachusetts. If the state passes an amendment to its constitution, the earliest it would end up on the ballot would be in 2006, meaning Wednesday's ruling would render gay marriage legal up until that point.
