BOSTON, Mass. — Massachusetts’ highest court ruled Feb. 4 that civil unions are not good enough to comply with the court’s historic ruling last year that opened civil marriage to gay couples.
The Supreme Judicial Court, answering an inquiry from the State Senate, said homosexuals would be “second-class” citizens if denied full access to civil marriage.
When the court ruled in a 4–3 decision Nov. 18 that it is unconstitutional to limit marriage only to heterosexuals, it gave the Legislature 180 days to comply. That window expires May 16, meaning the Bay State will be the first in the nation to allow gay couples to marry legally. Even a state constitutional convention planned for next Feb. 11 could not stop gay couples from marrying, since the amendment, if passed, would need to be ratified by voters and would not take effect until 2006.
The court’s disagreement with the Legislature came from language in the bill that would preserve “the traditional, historic nature and meaning of the institution of civil marriage, while offering same-sex couples a ‘civil union,’ recognized as something less than ‘marriage.’”
“If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process,” said President Bush. “We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.”
The White House has not said whether President Bush would support the current effort in Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution to outlaw gay marriage nationwide, but he has said he would support a constitutional amendment to do so, “if necessary.” The Federal Marriage Amendment, if passed, would ban gay marriage and deny marital benefits to same-sex couples — thus trumping state laws.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said the issue is not settled.
(TAB)
Share with others: