402:(3) preserving scarce State and private financial resources." The first, she wrote, incorrectly posits that the state privileges "procreative heterosexual intercourse between married people". Rather "Fertility is not a condition of marriage, nor is it grounds for divorce. People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married." The misconception that "'marriage is procreation'", she wrote, "confers an official stamp of approval on the destructive stereotype that same-sex relationships are inherently unstable and inferior to opposite-sex relationships and are not worthy of respect." The second, the marriage of a man and a woman as the "optimal setting for child rearing", a claim she said many Massachusetts statutes and the notion of "the best interests of the child" refuted, she found irrelevant, in that denying marriage licenses to one class of persons does not affect the marriage patterns of the other class. 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." She concluded that "It cannot be rational under our laws, and indeed it is not permitted, to penalize children by depriving them of State benefits because the State disapproves of their parents' sexual orientation." She dismissed the third rationale as an unjustified generalization about the economic interdependence of same-sex partners. 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."
489:
to all of the infinite variety of household structures that a free society permits." She went on to argue that "bsent consensus on the issue, or unanimity amongst scientists studying the issue, or a more prolonged period of observation of this new family structure, it is rational for the
Legislature to postpone any redefinition of marriage that would include same-sex couples until such time as it is certain that redefinition will not have unintended and undesirable social consequences." She concluded that "s a matter of social history, opinion may represent a great turning point that many will hail as a tremendous step toward a more just society. As a matter of constitutional jurisprudence, however, the case stands as an aberration."
410:
the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage, any more than recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of a different race devalues the marriage of a person who marries someone of her own race. If anything, extending civil marriage to same-sex couples reinforces the importance of marriage to individuals and communities. That same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage's solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support, and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit.
31:
380:: "Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach. 'Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.'" She rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the state's marriage licensing law, which mentions marriage but never the gender of the parties, could be interpreted to permit same-sex marriages. The lack of a definition, she wrote, shows the legislature meant
310:
Citizens
Alliance, the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, The National Legal Foundation, the Marriage Law Project, the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Coalition gaie et lesbienne du Québec, the Free Market Foundation, the Massachusetts Psychiatric Society, Agudath Israel of America, several Attorneys General (including those of Nebraska, Utah, and South Dakota), and a variety of individuals.
273:(GLAD) sued the Massachusetts Department of Health in Superior Court on behalf of seven same-sex couples, all residents of Massachusetts, who had been denied marriage licenses in March and April 2001. All the plaintiffs had been in long-term relationships with their partners and four of the couples were raising a total of five children. The department's responsibilities included setting policies under which city and town clerks issue marriage licenses.
323:
It forbids the creation of second-class citizens." The plaintiffs had asked the Court to say that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated
Massachusetts law. Instead the opinion said: "We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
435:
of public health, safety, or general welfare, suggests that the marriage restriction is rooted in persistent prejudices against persons who are (or who are believed to be) homosexual ... Limiting the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the basic premises of individual liberty and equality under law protected by the
Massachusetts Constitution.
457:
is based solely on the applicants' gender." Since, in his view, "constitutional protections extend to individuals and not to categories of people", Massachusetts is not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation but restricting a person's choice of spouse on the basis of gender, a classification he found the state had not justified.
533:
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
520:
A poll of
Massachusetts residents taken on November 19–20 found that 50 percent supported the decision, 38 percent opposed it, and 11 percent had no opinion; 53 percent opposed the proposed constitutional amendment and 36 percent supported it; 53 percent thought the legislature should do nothing more
488:
Justice Sosman noted that "eople are of course at liberty to raise their children in various family structures, so long as they are not literally harming their children by doing so. But that does not mean that the State is required to provide identical forms of encouragement, endorsement, and support
434:
The marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason. The absence of any reasonable relationship between, on the one hand, an absolute disqualification of same-sex couples who wish to enter into civil marriage and, on the other, protection
409:
Here, the plaintiffs seek only to be married, not to undermine the institution of civil marriage. They do not want marriage abolished. They do not attack the binary nature of marriage, the consanguinity provisions, or any of the other gate-keeping provisions of the marriage licensing law. Recognizing
550:
to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman but allow the states the option of creating other legal arrangements for same-sex couples. Same-sex marriage took on national importance as public officials in several jurisdictions allowed more than 7,000 same-sex
480:
Justice Cordy stated that "the
Legislature could rationally conclude that it furthers the legitimate State purpose of ensuring, promoting, and supporting an optimal social structure for the bearing and raising of children." He continued that "this case is not about government intrusions into matters
456:
authored a concurring opinion in which he said he shared much of
Marshall's analysis, but viewed the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples as sex discrimination: "The marriage statutes prohibit some applicants, such as the plaintiffs, from obtaining a marriage license, and that prohibition
578:
or block its implementation before the state began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on May 17, 2004. News coverage of that day's events in
Massachusetts was extensive, though limited outside the United States. The three major networks lead their evening news shows with wedding coverage
545:
with a statement supporting an 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." On February 24, President Bush for
425:
We would not presume to dictate how another State should respond to today's decision. But neither should considerations of comity prevent us from according
Massachusetts residents the full measure of protection available under the Massachusetts Constitution. The genius of our Federal system is that
387:
Turning to whether the state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples violated the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process, she noted that "The Massachusetts Constitution protects matters of personal liberty against government incursion as zealously, and often more
322:
said it was asked to determine whether Massachusetts "may deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals.
285:
Recognizing that procreation is marriage's central purpose, it is rational for the legislature to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples who, theoretically, are capable of procreation. Moreover, because same-sex couples are unable to procreate on their own and therefore must rely on inherently more
714:
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. Julie and Hillary Goodridge married on
401:
She then considered and dismissed the three rationales the DPH offered for its marriage licensing policy: "(1) providing a 'favorable setting for procreation'; (2) ensuring the optimal setting for child rearing, which the department defines as 'a two-parent family with one parent of each sex'; and
516:
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 an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary
309:
Amicus briefs were submitted on behalf of the Boston Bar Association, the Massachusetts Bar Association, the Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Family Institute, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, The Common Good Foundation, the Massachusetts
647:
on September 14, 2005, when the compromise collapsed. Second, opponents of same-sex marriage proposed language defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, making no reference to civil unions. By gathering enough signatures on petitions, their amendment required a vote of just 25% of the
704:
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
638:
requiring repeated approval by the legislature before being put to a popular vote. They used each of the two methods the Massachusetts Constitution provides. First, legislators devised their own compromise language that banned same-sex marriage and permitted civil unions with the proviso that
524:
The SJC had stayed implementation of its ruling for 180 days in order to allow the legislature to respond as it found necessary. 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 SJC replied on
280:
on May 7, 2002. He wrote: "While this court understands the reasons for the plaintiffs' request to reverse the Commonwealth's centuries-old legal tradition of restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, their request should be directed to the Legislature, not the courts.” He noted that the
484:
Justice Spina wrote that "hat is at stake in this case is not the unequal treatment of individuals or whether individuals rights have been impermissibly burdened, but the power of the Legislature to effectuate social change without interference from the courts, pursuant to art. 30 of the
305:
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."
443:
had "refined common-law meaning of marriage" and then provided the Court's meaning: "We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others." The legislature retained its "broad discretion to regulate marriage".
521:
than modify state law to conform with the SJC opinion, while 16 percent wanted the governor and legislators to resist the ruling's implementation and 23 percent wanted them to provide benefits to same-sex couples while reserving marriage to different-sex couples.
120:
The denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated provisions of the state constitution guaranteeing individual liberty and equality, and was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Superior Court of Massachusetts at Suffolk vacated and
421:. 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. As for creating conflict with the laws of other states, she wrote:
426:
each State's Constitution has vitality specific to its own traditions, and that, subject to the minimum requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment, each State is free to address difficult issues of individual liberty in the manner its own Constitution demands.
664:
More than 10,000 same-sex couples married in Massachusetts in the first four years after such marriages became legal on May 17, 2004. Approximately 6,100 marriages took place in the first six months, and they continued at a rate of about 1,000 per year.
388:
so, than does the Federal Constitution, even where both Constitutions employ essentially the same language." Discussing the proper standard for review, she found that the Court did not need to consider whether the plaintiffs' claims merited
676:, 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.
599:, 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
52:
Hillary Goodridge, Julie Goodridge, David Wilson, Robert Compton, Michael Horgan, Edward Balmelli, Maureen Brodoff, Ellen Wade, Gary Chalmers, Richard Linnell, Heidi Norton, Gina Smith, Gloria Bailey, and Linda Davies v.
1401:
639:
same-sex civil unions would not qualify as marriages for federal purposes. That proposed amendment needed to be approved by a majority vote in two successive joint sessions of the legislature, but after passing the
622:
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
414:
She then reviewed the history of constitutional law as one of "'the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded'", quoting the U.S. Supreme Court once more,
481:
of personal liberty," but "about whether the State must endorse and support by changing the institution of civil marriage to make its benefits, obligations, and responsibilities applicable to them."
715:
May 17, 2004, the first day the state issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as did the other six plaintiff couples. The Goodridges separated amicably in July 2006 and divorced in July 2009.
281:
legislature had recently defeated same-sex marriage legislation and defended that as a rational decision rooted in the historical definition of marriage and its association with child rearing:
1708:
1676:
286:
cumbersome means of having children, it is also rational to assume that same-sex couples are less likely to have children or, at least, to have as many children as opposite-sex couples.
276:
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
1409:
556:
504:
reacted to the decision with a prediction: "This comes pretty close to an earthquake politically. I think it's exactly the right kind of material for a backlash." Justice
330:
to "take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion." Reactions included speculation that the legislature could follow Vermont's example and enact
1014:
627:, 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.
338:
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." Arthur Miller, a
1540:
600:
1030:
603:
of the U.S. Constitution when it refused to stay its decision to allow for a referendum to amend the state constitution. In May 2004, U.S. District Court Judge
1630:
568:
405:
Addressing the concerns expressed in various amicus briefs about the potential harm same-sex marriage might cause to the institution of marriage, she wrote:
618:
On June 17, 2004, GLAAD filed another suit on behalf of eight same-sex couples with ties to Massachusetts, but not residents of the state. It challenged a
608:
1819:
803:
653:
649:
644:
640:
342:
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.
517:
will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."
1158:
1599:
1824:
366:
joined. Although the arguments and the decision turned entirely on questions of state law, she cited in her discussion of the Court's duty the
1763:
1431:
485:
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights." He wrote that the "power to regulate marriage lies with the Legislature, not with the judiciary."
1328:
1486:
1738:
758:
392:, a more thorough than usual standard of review, because the state's marriage policy did not meet the most basic standard of review,
277:
54:
1043:
302:
705:
marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition.
564:
318:
On November 18, 2003, the Court decided, by a vote of 4–3, that excluding same-sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional. The
257:
to find that same-sex couples had the right to marry. Despite numerous attempts to delay the ruling, and to reverse it, the first
1804:
560:
291:
270:
595:
Opponents of the decision asked federal courts to overrule the decision. A suit filed by a conservative nonprofit organization,
534:
laws of the Commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain."
1794:
1700:
246:
1221:
611:
in June. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case without comment in November. Other opponents of same-sex marriage formed
1799:
1548:
1315:
980:
Hillary Goodridge & others vs. Department of Public Health & another, 440 Mass. 309 March 4, 2003 - November 18, 2003
921:
635:
1277:
1011:
1743:
1098:
891:
552:
319:
238:
231:
41:
860:
829:
1768:
1592:
1653:
1141:
724:
684:
367:
1512:
1205:
995:
508:, who voted with the majority, reported receiving threats against his life following the decision. In his January 20
235:
1299:
648:
legislators in two successive joint sessions of the legislature. This amendment received the necessary votes the
541:
responded to the SJC's February 2004 statement that civil unions were an insufficient response to its ruling in
1814:
1809:
1585:
1237:
1347:
1206:
David D. Kirkpatrick and Katie Zezima, "Supreme Court Turns Down A Same-Sex Marriage Case," November 30, 2004
1189:
1716:
1648:
1640:
729:
298:
of GLAD argued the case for the plaintiffs. Assistant Attorney General Judith Yogman represented the DPH.
440:
327:
261:
were issued to same-sex couples on May 17, 2004, and the ruling has been in full effect since that date.
254:
1300:
Deborah Feyerick and Sheila Steffen, "Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, 4 years later," June 16, 2008
547:
509:
242:
1625:
417:
1753:
677:
1658:
1251:
1133:
1126:
619:
227:
1372:
1072:
1773:
1316:
Ethan Jacobs, "Five years on, mostly smooth sailing for marriage equality," November 19, 2008
615:
to promote the adoption of an amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage.
394:
1620:
766:
689:
607:
denied their request for an injunction delaying implementation of the decision, as did the
351:
215:
Mass. Const. arts. 1, 6, 7, and 10, and Part II, c. 1, § 1, art. 4; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 207
134:
8:
1748:
505:
355:
142:
1238:
Michael Levenson," Governor signs law allowing out-of-state gays to wed," July 31, 2008
612:
604:
339:
1572:
1137:
979:
372:
335:
82:
1460:
102:
Summary judgment granted to defendants, 14 Mass. L. Rep. 591 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2002)
742:
470:
258:
154:
146:
1018:
774:
750:
656:
when 45 legislators voted for the amendment and 151 against it on June 14, 2007.
596:
466:
453:
363:
359:
158:
150:
138:
683:
As of June 2015, same-sex marriages were made legal across the US when the
525:
February 4, 2004, that civil unions would not suffice to satisfy its finding in
1517:
1436:
899:
868:
837:
513:
501:
1190:
Laura Kiritsy, "Goodridge celebrates its paper anniversary," November 18, 2004
1788:
1692:
700:
decision, some wedding celebrations have used passages from it. For example:
474:
326:
The court stayed the implementation of its ruling for 180 days to allow the
1758:
673:
295:
1402:"Landmark Mass. decision on gay marriage becomes popular text at weddings"
1373:"Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio, Department of Health, et al"
538:
377:
331:
1577:
30:
497:
250:
1709:
Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
16:
2003 US state court case which legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts
1222:
SJC: Nonresident gays can't marry; chaos is predicted, April 3, 2006
439:
Considering what relief to grant the plaintiffs, she noted that the
1677:
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston
1012:
Michael Levenson, "SJC nominee tells of threats," December 1, 2010
590:
86:
922:"Excerpts from Attorney General Tom Reilly's Goodridge brief"
693:
that state bans of same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.
996:"Excerpts From the Massachusetts Ruling," November 19, 2003
1073:"Gays Have Full Marriage Rights, Massachusetts Court Says"
1329:"U.S. 21st country to allow same-sex marriage nationwide"
1348:"Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules, 5-4"
492:
1252:"Massachusetts Rejects Bill to Eliminate Gay Marriage"
804:"Marriage by Gays Gains Big Victory in Massachusetts"
630:
Opponents of same-sex marriage sought to reverse the
249:. The November 18, 2003, decision was the first by a
574:The legislature took no action either to implement
1631:Massachusetts Governor's Task Force on Hate Crimes
1459:Abraham, Yvonne; Paulson, Michael (May 18, 2004).
1278:"Legislators vote to defeat same-sex marriage ban"
1125:
1097:Allen, Mike; Cooperman, Alan (February 25, 2004).
1042:Phillips, Frank; Klein, Rick (November 23, 2003).
384:in "the term's common-law and quotidian meaning".
1541:"After 2 Years, Same-Sex Marriage Icons Split Up"
477:filed separate dissents from the Court's ruling.
1786:
1487:"For towns that denied rights, altar is now set"
634:decision by amending the state constitution, an
529:. The 4 justices who formed the majority in the
334:in that time period, but state Senate President
591:Lawsuits and proposed constitutional amendments
294:(SJC), which heard arguments on March 4, 2003.
1458:
1096:
354:wrote the majority opinion, in which justices
1764:Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition
1593:
1159:"Gay marriage story drew headlines worldwide"
1044:"50% in poll back SJC ruling on gay marriage"
1041:
625:Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health
1739:Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
1099:"Bush Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage"
975:
973:
971:
969:
967:
965:
963:
173:Marshall, joined by Greaney, Ireland, Cowin
1668:
1600:
1586:
961:
959:
957:
955:
953:
951:
949:
947:
945:
943:
892:"SJC Peppers Lawyers on Same-Sex Marriage"
29:
1820:American Civil Liberties Union litigation
1607:
1156:
759:Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health
55:Massachusetts Department of Public Health
1685:Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
1538:
1399:
1275:
1181:
1179:
1128:America's Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage
861:"Judge Dismisses Same-Sex Marriage Suit"
797:
795:
793:
791:
290:The plaintiffs appealed directly to the
245:requires the state to legally recognize
1513:"Same-Sex Marriage Plaintiffs Separate"
1484:
1249:
1123:
1066:
1064:
940:
827:
801:
271:Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders
1787:
1701:Gill v. Office of Personnel Management
1510:
1345:
1132:. Cambridge University Press. p.
1070:
460:
241:case in which the Court held that the
1825:United States same-sex union case law
1581:
1176:
889:
858:
788:
430:She summarized the Court's decision:
1744:Gay and Lesbian Athletics Foundation
1432:"Hillary Goodridge, Julie Goodridge"
1071:Neilan, Terence (February 4, 2004).
1061:
1031:State of the Union, January 20, 2004
500:, professor of political science at
493:Reaction and first same-sex weddings
320:Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
239:Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
42:Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1769:Harvard Gender and Sexuality Caucus
1539:Levenson, Michael (July 21, 2009).
1250:Belluck, Pam (September 15, 2005).
345:
223:Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health
57:and Commissioner of Public Health
24:Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health
13:
1654:Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts
1400:Feathers, Todd (January 8, 2013).
828:Abraham, Yvonne (April 12, 2001).
802:Belluck, Pam (November 19, 2003).
725:Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts
14:
1836:
1573:Copy of Decision at Masscases.com
1566:
1276:Phillips, Frank (June 14, 2007).
890:Burge, Kathleen (March 5, 2003).
636:extended process in Massachusetts
370:'s decision the previous June in
1157:Jurkowitz, Mark (May 19, 2004).
668:On the fifth anniversary of the
1532:
1511:Zezima, Katie (July 22, 2006).
1504:
1485:Abraham, Yvonne (May 9, 2004).
1478:
1452:
1424:
1393:
1365:
1339:
1321:
1305:
1292:
1269:
1243:
1227:
1211:
1195:
1150:
1117:
1090:
1035:
859:Burge, Kathleen (May 9, 2002).
301:Massachusetts Attorney General
1805:2003 in United States case law
1408:. Boston Globe. Archived from
1346:Liptak, Adam (June 26, 2015).
1024:
1001:
985:
914:
883:
852:
821:
609:First Circuit Court of Appeals
447:
205:Cordy, joined by Spina, Sosman
197:Sosman, joined by Spina, Cordy
189:Spina, joined by Sosman, Cordy
1:
1795:LGBTQ rights in Massachusetts
782:
709:
579:and it was lead story in the
1800:Massachusetts state case law
1717:Barrett v. Fontbonne Academy
1649:LGBT rights in Massachusetts
1218:Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly
778:, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009)
730:LGBT rights in Massachusetts
559:, New Mexico (February 20);
7:
1124:Pinello, Daniel R. (2006).
718:
696:In the years following the
441:Court of Appeal for Ontario
313:
10:
1841:
1192:, accessed January 1, 2014
830:"Gays Seek Right to Marry"
563:, New York (February 27);
555:(February 12 – March 11);
551:couples to wed, including
548:Federal Marriage Amendment
546:the first time endorsed a
510:State of the Union address
243:Massachusetts Constitution
1731:
1639:
1626:Combahee River Collective
1613:
1318:, accessed March 19, 2011
1302:, accessed March 13, 2011
1240:, accessed March 19, 2011
1224:, accessed March 19, 2011
1208:, accessed March 19, 2011
1021:, accessed March 19, 2011
998:, accessed March 19, 2011
746:, 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999)
659:
418:United States v. Virginia
214:
209:
201:
193:
185:
177:
169:
164:
130:
125:
119:
114:
106:
98:
93:
78:
70:
62:
47:
37:
28:
23:
571:, New Jersey (March 8).
567:, Oregon (March 3); and
1754:Family Equality Council
1017:April 12, 2013, at the
982:, accessed July 6, 2016
770:, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008)
678:Defense of Marriage Act
264:
1659:Massachusetts 1913 law
762:, 289 Conn. 135 (2008)
707:
437:
428:
412:
292:Supreme Judicial Court
288:
1815:2003 in LGBTQ history
1810:2003 in Massachusetts
1608:LGBT in Massachusetts
754:, 188 N.J. 415 (2006)
736:State court decisions
702:
432:
423:
407:
283:
1621:Secret Court of 1920
902:on February 13, 2016
767:In re Marriage Cases
690:Obergefell v. Hodges
537:Republican Governor
278:Department of Health
135:Margaret H. Marshall
1749:Knowthyneighbor.org
1551:on November 6, 2012
1103:The Washington Post
928:. February 20, 2003
506:Roderick L. Ireland
461:Dissenting opinions
356:Roderick L. Ireland
269:On April 11, 2001,
143:Roderick L. Ireland
613:VoteOnMarriage.org
368:U.S. Supreme Court
1782:
1781:
1727:
1726:
840:on March 29, 2015
652:, but failed the
376:that invalidated
373:Lawrence v. Texas
352:Margaret Marshall
336:Robert Travaglini
328:state legislature
259:marriage licenses
247:same-sex marriage
219:
218:
107:Subsequent action
74:November 18, 2003
1832:
1666:
1665:
1602:
1595:
1588:
1579:
1578:
1561:
1560:
1558:
1556:
1547:. Archived from
1536:
1530:
1529:
1527:
1525:
1508:
1502:
1501:
1499:
1497:
1482:
1476:
1475:
1473:
1471:
1456:
1450:
1449:
1447:
1445:
1428:
1422:
1421:
1419:
1417:
1397:
1391:
1390:
1388:
1386:
1380:supremecourt.gov
1377:
1369:
1363:
1362:
1360:
1358:
1343:
1337:
1336:
1335:. June 26, 2015.
1325:
1319:
1309:
1303:
1296:
1290:
1289:
1287:
1285:
1273:
1267:
1266:
1264:
1262:
1247:
1241:
1231:
1225:
1215:
1209:
1199:
1193:
1183:
1174:
1173:
1171:
1169:
1154:
1148:
1147:
1131:
1121:
1115:
1114:
1112:
1110:
1094:
1088:
1087:
1085:
1083:
1068:
1059:
1058:
1056:
1054:
1039:
1033:
1028:
1022:
1005:
999:
989:
983:
977:
938:
937:
935:
933:
918:
912:
911:
909:
907:
898:. Archived from
887:
881:
880:
878:
876:
871:on June 10, 2014
867:. Archived from
856:
850:
849:
847:
845:
836:. Archived from
825:
819:
818:
816:
814:
799:
743:Baker v. Vermont
565:Multnomah County
471:Francis X. Spina
346:Majority opinion
155:Martha B. Sosman
147:Francis X. Spina
126:Court membership
89:941 (Mass. 2003)
33:
21:
20:
1840:
1839:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1778:
1723:
1664:
1635:
1609:
1606:
1569:
1564:
1554:
1552:
1537:
1533:
1523:
1521:
1509:
1505:
1495:
1493:
1483:
1479:
1469:
1467:
1457:
1453:
1443:
1441:
1430:
1429:
1425:
1415:
1413:
1398:
1394:
1384:
1382:
1375:
1371:
1370:
1366:
1356:
1354:
1344:
1340:
1327:
1326:
1322:
1310:
1306:
1297:
1293:
1283:
1281:
1274:
1270:
1260:
1258:
1248:
1244:
1232:
1228:
1216:
1212:
1200:
1196:
1184:
1177:
1167:
1165:
1155:
1151:
1144:
1122:
1118:
1108:
1106:
1095:
1091:
1081:
1079:
1069:
1062:
1052:
1050:
1040:
1036:
1029:
1025:
1019:Wayback Machine
1006:
1002:
990:
986:
978:
941:
931:
929:
920:
919:
915:
905:
903:
888:
884:
874:
872:
857:
853:
843:
841:
826:
822:
812:
810:
800:
789:
785:
775:Varnum v. Brien
751:Lewis v. Harris
721:
712:
662:
597:Liberty Counsel
593:
581:Washington Post
557:Sandoval County
495:
467:Robert J. Cordy
463:
454:John M. Greaney
450:
390:strict scrutiny
364:John M. Greaney
360:Judith A. Cowin
348:
316:
267:
159:Robert J. Cordy
151:Judith A. Cowin
139:John M. Greaney
17:
12:
11:
5:
1838:
1828:
1827:
1822:
1817:
1812:
1807:
1802:
1797:
1780:
1779:
1777:
1776:
1771:
1766:
1761:
1756:
1751:
1746:
1741:
1735:
1733:
1729:
1728:
1725:
1724:
1722:
1721:
1713:
1705:
1697:
1689:
1681:
1672:
1670:
1663:
1662:
1656:
1651:
1645:
1643:
1637:
1636:
1634:
1633:
1628:
1623:
1617:
1615:
1611:
1610:
1605:
1604:
1597:
1590:
1582:
1576:
1575:
1568:
1567:External links
1565:
1563:
1562:
1531:
1518:New York Times
1503:
1477:
1451:
1440:. May 23, 2004
1437:New York Times
1423:
1412:on May 8, 2022
1392:
1364:
1352:New York Times
1338:
1320:
1304:
1291:
1280:. Boston Globe
1268:
1256:New York Times
1242:
1226:
1210:
1202:New York Times
1194:
1175:
1149:
1143:978-0521848565
1142:
1116:
1089:
1077:New York Times
1060:
1034:
1023:
1000:
992:New York Times
984:
939:
913:
882:
851:
820:
808:New York Times
786:
784:
781:
780:
779:
771:
763:
755:
747:
738:
737:
733:
732:
727:
720:
717:
711:
708:
661:
658:
643:it failed the
592:
589:
585:New York Times
514:George W. Bush
502:Boston College
494:
491:
462:
459:
449:
446:
395:rational basis
350:Chief Justice
347:
344:
315:
312:
266:
263:
217:
216:
212:
211:
207:
206:
203:
199:
198:
195:
191:
190:
187:
183:
182:
179:
175:
174:
171:
167:
166:
162:
161:
132:
131:Judges sitting
128:
127:
123:
122:
117:
116:
112:
111:
108:
104:
103:
100:
96:
95:
91:
90:
80:
76:
75:
72:
68:
67:
64:
60:
59:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1837:
1826:
1823:
1821:
1818:
1816:
1813:
1811:
1808:
1806:
1803:
1801:
1798:
1796:
1793:
1792:
1790:
1775:
1772:
1770:
1767:
1765:
1762:
1760:
1757:
1755:
1752:
1750:
1747:
1745:
1742:
1740:
1737:
1736:
1734:
1732:Organizations
1730:
1719:
1718:
1714:
1711:
1710:
1706:
1703:
1702:
1698:
1695:
1694:
1693:Cook v. Gates
1690:
1687:
1686:
1682:
1679:
1678:
1674:
1673:
1671:
1667:
1660:
1657:
1655:
1652:
1650:
1647:
1646:
1644:
1642:
1638:
1632:
1629:
1627:
1624:
1622:
1619:
1618:
1616:
1612:
1603:
1598:
1596:
1591:
1589:
1584:
1583:
1580:
1574:
1571:
1570:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1535:
1520:
1519:
1514:
1507:
1492:
1488:
1481:
1466:
1462:
1461:"Wedding Day"
1455:
1439:
1438:
1433:
1427:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1396:
1381:
1374:
1368:
1353:
1349:
1342:
1334:
1330:
1324:
1317:
1313:
1308:
1301:
1295:
1279:
1272:
1257:
1253:
1246:
1239:
1235:
1230:
1223:
1219:
1214:
1207:
1203:
1198:
1191:
1187:
1182:
1180:
1164:
1160:
1153:
1145:
1139:
1135:
1130:
1129:
1120:
1104:
1100:
1093:
1078:
1074:
1067:
1065:
1049:
1045:
1038:
1032:
1027:
1020:
1016:
1013:
1009:
1004:
997:
993:
988:
981:
976:
974:
972:
970:
968:
966:
964:
962:
960:
958:
956:
954:
952:
950:
948:
946:
944:
927:
923:
917:
901:
897:
893:
886:
870:
866:
862:
855:
839:
835:
831:
824:
809:
805:
798:
796:
794:
792:
787:
777:
776:
772:
769:
768:
764:
761:
760:
756:
753:
752:
748:
745:
744:
740:
739:
735:
734:
731:
728:
726:
723:
722:
716:
706:
701:
699:
694:
692:
691:
686:
685:Supreme Court
681:
679:
675:
671:
666:
657:
655:
651:
646:
642:
637:
633:
628:
626:
621:
616:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
588:
586:
582:
577:
572:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
553:San Francisco
549:
544:
540:
535:
532:
528:
522:
518:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
490:
486:
482:
478:
476:
475:Martha Sosman
472:
468:
458:
455:
445:
442:
436:
431:
427:
422:
420:
419:
411:
406:
403:
399:
397:
396:
391:
385:
383:
379:
375:
374:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
343:
341:
337:
333:
329:
324:
321:
311:
307:
304:
299:
297:
293:
287:
282:
279:
274:
272:
262:
260:
256:
255:highest court
252:
248:
244:
240:
237:
233:
229:
225:
224:
213:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:Case opinions
163:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
133:
129:
124:
118:
113:
109:
105:
101:
99:Prior actions
97:
92:
88:
84:
83:440 Mass. 309
81:
77:
73:
69:
66:March 4, 2003
65:
61:
58:
56:
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
1759:MassEquality
1715:
1707:
1699:
1691:
1684:
1683:
1675:
1553:. Retrieved
1549:the original
1545:Boston Globe
1544:
1534:
1522:. Retrieved
1516:
1506:
1494:. Retrieved
1491:Boston Globe
1490:
1480:
1468:. Retrieved
1465:Boston Globe
1464:
1454:
1442:. Retrieved
1435:
1426:
1414:. Retrieved
1410:the original
1405:
1395:
1383:. Retrieved
1379:
1367:
1355:. Retrieved
1351:
1341:
1332:
1323:
1311:
1307:
1294:
1282:. Retrieved
1271:
1259:. Retrieved
1255:
1245:
1234:Boston Globe
1233:
1229:
1217:
1213:
1201:
1197:
1185:
1166:. Retrieved
1163:Boston Globe
1162:
1152:
1127:
1119:
1107:. Retrieved
1105:. p. A1
1102:
1092:
1080:. Retrieved
1076:
1051:. Retrieved
1048:Boston Globe
1047:
1037:
1026:
1008:Boston Globe
1007:
1003:
991:
987:
930:. Retrieved
925:
916:
904:. Retrieved
900:the original
896:Boston Globe
895:
885:
873:. Retrieved
869:the original
865:Boston Globe
864:
854:
842:. Retrieved
838:the original
834:Boston Globe
833:
823:
811:. Retrieved
807:
773:
765:
757:
749:
741:
713:
703:
697:
695:
688:
682:
674:Mary Bonauto
669:
667:
663:
631:
629:
624:
617:
605:Joseph Tauro
594:
584:
580:
575:
573:
542:
536:
530:
526:
523:
519:
512:, President
496:
487:
483:
479:
464:
451:
438:
433:
429:
424:
416:
413:
408:
404:
400:
393:
389:
386:
381:
371:
349:
332:civil unions
325:
317:
308:
300:
296:Mary Bonauto
289:
284:
275:
268:
234:2003), is a
222:
221:
220:
210:Laws applied
94:Case history
51:
18:
1669:Court cases
1661:(1913–2008)
1312:Bay Windows
1186:Bay Windows
1109:January 15,
926:Bay Windows
654:second time
645:second time
569:Asbury Park
539:Mitt Romney
448:Concurrence
378:sodomy laws
340:Harvard law
178:Concurrence
1789:Categories
1406:Boston.com
1053:August 20,
813:October 1,
783:References
710:Plaintiffs
672:decision,
650:first time
641:first time
601:Article IV
498:Alan Wolfe
303:Tom Reilly
251:U.S. state
1555:March 18,
1444:March 18,
844:August 2,
698:Goodridge
687:ruled in
670:Goodridge
632:Goodridge
576:Goodridge
561:New Paltz
543:Goodridge
531:Goodridge
527:Goodridge
465:Justices
121:remanded.
79:Citations
1496:July 29,
1385:June 26,
1357:June 26,
1168:July 11,
1015:Archived
932:July 10,
906:July 11,
719:See also
680:(DOMA).
620:1913 law
583:and the
452:Justice
382:marriage
314:Decision
236:landmark
170:Majority
1614:History
1524:June 7,
1470:July 9,
1284:July 8,
1261:July 7,
1082:July 8,
875:July 9,
202:Dissent
194:Dissent
186:Dissent
181:Greaney
115:Holding
71:Decided
1774:Keshet
1720:(2015)
1712:(2013)
1704:(2013)
1696:(2008)
1688:(2003)
1680:(1995)
1641:Rights
1416:May 8,
1140:
660:Impact
473:, and
362:, and
228:N.E.2d
226:, 798
87:N.E.2d
85:, 798
63:Argued
1376:(PDF)
1298:CNN:
232:Mass.
230:941 (
38:Court
1557:2011
1526:2007
1498:2013
1472:2013
1446:2011
1418:2022
1387:2015
1359:2015
1286:2013
1263:2013
1170:2013
1138:ISBN
1111:2009
1084:2013
1055:2013
934:2013
908:2013
877:2013
846:2013
815:2014
265:Case
110:none
1333:CNN
253:'s
1791::
1543:.
1515:.
1489:.
1463:.
1434:.
1404:.
1378:.
1350:.
1331:.
1314::
1254:.
1236::
1220::
1204::
1188::
1178:^
1161:.
1136:.
1134:19
1101:.
1075:.
1063:^
1046:.
1010::
994::
942:^
924:.
894:.
863:.
832:.
806:.
790:^
587:.
469:,
398:.
358:,
157:,
153:,
149:,
145:,
141:,
137:,
1601:e
1594:t
1587:v
1559:.
1528:.
1500:.
1474:.
1448:.
1420:.
1389:.
1361:.
1288:.
1265:.
1172:.
1146:.
1113:.
1086:.
1057:.
936:.
910:.
879:.
848:.
817:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
