Gay marriage ban could go to voters next year in Massachusetts
BOSTON — When the Legislature votes again this year on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and allow civil unions, it will be another dramatic step in what has been a long and often painful political fight. [...]
The amendment would overturn the Supreme Judicial Court’s 2003 ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that declared the state law banning gay marriage to be unconstitutional. That decision took effect May 17, 2004. [...]
The amendment — which was approved, 109-92, last year — is expected to pass again this year. If it does, it requires the approval of the majority of voters at the ballot box next year. (source)
My understanding is that, if the amendment does pass, it will go before the voters. If the majority of voters approve the amendment, it will become part of the state constitution. I believe that all the marriages performed for gay couples in Massachusetts would then be converted over to a “civil union”. I’m not clear is those “civil unions” would have fewer rights than marriage.
One thing is clear. If this were to happen, it would be more difficult to challenge this at the federal level. Today, these couples have full marriage. Those marriages are, in Massachusetts, no different than heterosexual marriages. Why aren’t married gay couples in Massachusetts allowed to file a joint federal tax return like their straight counterparts? Good question, and this is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
However, the federal government does not support or have a mechanism in place to honor a “civil union” and my bet is, even though we all know that everyone in Washington is striving to be fair and equitable, that they probably have no intention of ever honoring a civil union.
2 Comments
Leave a comment
Matthew and Jeff,
Congratulations on your one year anniversary of marriage! I think that is awesome! :)
You are right about the Defense of Marriage Act. But, in my opinion (not based on legal expertise, but simple logic), is that there is a big difference in the Feds not honoring a "civil union" vs. a real marriage granted by a state, based on the Defense of Marriage Act.
Gay couples married in Massachusetts have something that none of the rest of us have - a legal marriage. How will the DOMA defend marriage against a real marriage given by a state? What ever else the DOMA stands for, it is blatantly unconstitutional to do that.
As of October 1st, Kent and I will be able to get a "civil union" in the State of Connecticut, which would give us most all the privileges of marriage, but only in the State of Connecticut. In contrast, you and Jeff are on equal par with any heterosexual marriage. For the Feds to deny your marriage is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. This Defense of Marriage Act can do it's business now, but I will tell you, it's days are numbered; not from people like Kent and myself (because a "civil union" cannot challenge it), but from people like you and Jeff, who have an actual marriage. That is what will kill DOMA.
Once again, I want to wish you both the very best on your One Year Anniversary of your marriage. And, I want to see you guys soon. I've been thinking very seriously about coming up to the Cape on a long weekend. In two weeks, we are on vacation - going to Ogunquit for a few days, and on up to Bath for a few days. We'll be gone a full week. Let's get together sometime if we can in the next month or so.
Hi, Bill...a number of things have changed since Jeff & I - and all gay couples - were allowed to be married here (our anniversary was yesterday, 5/21).
One thing that's changed is there are new members in the legislature who are pro-gay marriage. The second thing - and this is big - is that the sky did not fall after May 17, 2004. It's almost become a big nothing here within the general population. Some legislators, who voted for the amendment last year, are seeing that life goes on and our marriage has not impacted their marriages at all. Some mindsets are changing already.
Another note of interest is that neither the gay nor "conservative" community want this amendment. Gays, for obvious reasons, conservatives, because to them, we don't deserve any protections at all.
If the amendment were to make it onto the ballot in 2006 and be passed, all gay marriage would revert to "civil unions" with all the same rights and priviledges of marriage. It just won't be called marriage.
You're right about the fed not ever honoring a "civil union," but the fed does not honor gay marriage at this point either. Why? It's a little law called DOM (Defense of Marriage).