Toward EquaIity,One State Court at a Time the announcement came that the Just as OITM was going to production, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court . would - nearly four months after its own self-imposed deadline had elapsed — issue its ruling on whether the state could deny marriage licenses to same-gender couples in the Bay State.- The court’s language was clear and unambiguous: “The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obli- gations 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. It forbids the creation of ' second-class citizens.” The decision quoted Baker v. State (1999) and the U.S. Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas decision (2003). It also referred to the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal on marriage (2003). Perhaps the tide of a thousand years of legal discrimination and oppression, propped up by religious bigotry, is reced- _ mg. "Simply put, the government creates civil marriage. In Massachusetts, civil marriage is, and since pre-Colonial days has been, precisely what its name implies: a wholly secular institution. No religious ceremony has ever been required to validate a Massachusetts ’ marriage.” The news was, of course, greeted with laughter and tears of joy and amaze- ment by.many gay men and lesbians and pro-gay-marriage activists. One lesbian I spoke to: said she felt a new sense of “phys- ical freedom to stretch my arms a little bit,” because now there will be another state to consider living in where her same-sex rela- _ tionship would be protected and honored equally with sex-discordant marriages. “Civil marriage anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable relation- ships over transient ones. Civil mar- riage is at once a deeply personal com- mitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family." Anybody who was at all active . during the civil unions struggle following the Baker v. State ruling also groaned a lit- tle bit. Instead of ordering that civil mar: "riage licenses be granted to same-sex appli- cantsiimmediately, the court delayed imple- mentation of its order for 180 days to allow the Massachusetts legislature — not particu- larly friendly to queers — to “take appropri- ate action.” That action might include — as it did in Hawaii and Alaska — amending the state’s constitution to define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. At the very least, we know that the anti-gay right wing will be pouring money and ener-» gy into the Bay State to influence the, leg- islative outcome. And the pro-gay-marriage forces of Massachusetts are laboring under at least two handicaps: a House speaker and a governor who are unalterably opposed. Any constitutional amendment, if passed in two separate legislatures and then by popu- lar vote, would not take effect until 2006. “The benefits accessible only by way of a marriage license are enormous, touching nearly every aspect of life and death. Recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage There are fascinating political implications: Will Howard Dean’s presiden- tial campaign get a bounce from this rul- ing? It might suggest that Dean, rather than being out in “left field,” is actually just the leading edge of a new wave of civil rights, a courageous leader rather than a radical pandering to a vocal constituency. Will John Kerry’s campaign get V some traction in the gay and lesbian com- munity, even though he had nothing to do with the decision? What will Massachusetts state ‘ Senator Cheryl Jacques do? The recently out lesbian has just taken on the job of leading the Human Rights Campaign, leav- ing the Senate at a time when she couldbe instrumental in convincing her colleagues either to legislate to comply fully with the ruling or to not act and allow the court to ‘ order the issuance of licenses next May. Will the repercussions of any pro- gay-marriage action in the Massachusetts legislature include the wholesale unseating of many lgbt allies, as it did in Vermont? And has the Catholic Church’s authority been so discredited in the sexual . ' abuse scandal that its influence on this issue will be minimal? Or will this be the issue on which it decides to rebuild? The ruling is simple: "We con- strue civil marriage to mean the volun- tary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others." It’s the fallout that’s hard. - Activists from Hawaii and California offered their time, experience, and organizing expertise generously to -Verrnonters working for what became civil unions, and, said one Vermonter, “didn’t charge us a dime.” We need to offer our experience to our Massachusetts kin, in time, expertise, and yes, money, to help _ J them get one step further in the struggle for: equality. K As Associate Justice John J. Greaney wrote in his concurring Opinion: > l‘[N]either the mantra of tradition, nor‘ in J. individual conviction, can justify the per- ’ petuation of a hierarchy in which cou- ples of the same sex and their families are deemed less worthy of social and’ legal recognition than couples of the opposite sex and their families. “The plaintiffs are members of our community, our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends. [They] volun- teer in our schools, worshipbeside us in our religious houses, and have chil- dren who play with our children. We share a common humanity and partici- pate together in the social contract that is the foundation of our Commonwealth. Simple principles of decency dictatelthat we extend to the ‘ plaintiffs, and to their new status, full acceptance, tolerance, and respect. We should do so because it is the right thing to do.” Euan Bear, Editor Man