Mass. Court Strikes Down Gay-Marriage Ban

Massachusetts Court Rules Ban on Gay Marriage Is Unconstitutional, Orders Legislature to Fix Problem. BOSTON Nov. 18 — Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that same-sex couples are legally entitled to wed under the state constitution, but stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law. The court ruled 4-3, ordering the Legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days.

There is more on the Massachusetts gay marriage ruling at Boston.com, including this statement from Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, who wrote in the long-awaited ruling: "Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support. It brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial and social benefits. In return, it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations." Boston.com also noted that " he Supreme Judicial Court's ruling closely matches the 1999 Vermont Supreme Court decision, which led there to the Legislature's approval in 2000 of civil unions that give couples many of the same benefits of marriage."

TalkLeft is already on it, noting that the bill stops short of allowing the seven couples who had challenged the Massachusetts ban against gay marriage to be issued marriage licenses.

This news is huge. I sat in on the hearings for several bills, including the gay marriage bill. I had provided written testimony against the "partial-birth" abortion bill that was heard the same day. I sat in the Massachusetts State House with Greater Boston NOW, which I just joined last week.

We were greatly outnumbered by many anti-choice, anti-gay marriage, religious right folk who wore round blue stickers that looked nearly identicial to NOW's stickers. The pro-life stickers co-opted feminist language in saying that "women deserve a right to know" the "truth" about abortion. They fooled me for a while. I had never before provided testimony on Massachusetts bills, so I asked a few grandmotherly-types who wore those blue stickers if they knew where the people from NOW were. At least they were polite. It was rather funny. The sticker I mention above was worn by anti-choice folk who supported a "women's right to know" bill that would have required intrusive "instruction" about various options that the anti-choice camp would decide that women needed to hear about when they enter a women's medical clinic upon finding out that they are pregnant. Massachusetts law already requires full disclosure of options and information about medical procedures, including abortion. The "women's right to know" bill went beyond what was already required by Massachusetts state law in a very intrusive way. It bordered on harassment of women who seek medical services, including abortion.

While I was temporarily confused by the round blue stickers that mimicked NOW's stickers, the other stickers and pins the anti-choice and anti-gay marriage folk wore were much more direct. I found the subterfuge behind the blue stickers sneaky on their part. I wonder now if any legislators had been confused, but they probably caught on faster than I did. One purpose for wearing stickers serves as a gauge so that the legislators know how many people who support or oppose various bills are present during testimony. That way, at least, the stickers and pins are helpful. In a sense, those stickers that mimic the opposition's stickers might confusion the legislators -- therefore backfiring on the people who wear them. In the end, I don't think this actually happened but it's a consideration. It's best to be as direct as possible.

A group of religious right folk sat behind me in the State House, where the hearings were being held. Whenever anyone would get up to testify for gay marriage or civil unions (the other bill on the same issue) or to testify against the abortion bills, these people would start praying. One man decided to shove his way past myself and the women from Massachusetts NOW with whom I sat rather than take the longer and easier way around. This man accidentally-on-purpose brushed his dirty shoes on my white coat. He leaned over with a smile I later realized was a snear, brushed the dirt away with one hand, and said he didn't want to mess up my nice, clean coat. Being a polite and decent person, I thought he really had accidentally stepped on my coat. However, the woman sitting next to me gave him a look that spat daggers. It took me a few minutes to figure out what a hostile passive-aggressive stunt this man had pulled. It really creeped me out. I moved my coat to my side (it had been sitting on a wide ledge behind me), and tucked my briefcase and purse tightly under my legs. Once he sat down behind me, he began to pray the moment anyone stood up to testify in support of gay marriage, or to say that the abortion laws promoted by the religious right camp not only violated the constitution, they invaded women's privacy. There must have been some kind of signal the anti-choice/religious right folk gave each other, because they would pray and emote at the same time. It was like watching a flock of starlings dive-bomb the same tree, at the same time, without warning, but without all the noise.

Those who testified against the gay marriage and civil unions bills insisted that marriage is defined by bearing children, and since gay persons cannot give birth, they should not be permitted to marry. Several university professors had addressed those statements, saying that if that was the case, infertile straight couples and elderly straight couples would not be permitted to marry. Some anti-choice and religious right women brought along their infants as props to support hetersexual marriage and the "women's right to know" bill. I've seen that done before at rallies and at father's rights protests. I think it's inappropriate.

At the beginning of the hearings, the legislators had told everyone in the packed room to not applaud at the end of testimony because the hearings would take forever. I think they were afraid the political mood would get out of hand. Once, the religious right crowd erupted in applause after one of their side testified about one of these bills. It might have been against the civil unions bill. I can't remember. The legislature was not pleased. The move came across as very disruptive and rude. It certainly didn't win any brownie points.

There is a rally being held today in Boston, but I don't think I'll be able to make it. From what I've seen on the news it looks like everything is taking place in front of the State House. I recognize the gold rococco doorway. It's hard to miss. The entire building is hard to miss. It has a huge gold dome. The good thing for me is that the State House is a quick and easy train and subway ride for me, which is important since I live in the sticks. Public transporation in Boston can be a headache, but driving in Boston is a migraine. I avoid driving down there whenever possible. I thought Washington, D. C. drivers were maniacs. I know they are because I was one. Boston drivers are downright certifiable.