Massachusetts
Background: On April 11, 2001, seven
gay and lesbian couples (including seven Unitarian Universalists)
brought suit in Suffolk, Massachusetts Superior Court  ,
asserting that the couples had all been denied marriage licenses
and seeking to gain the legal recognition "that same-sex couples
...have an equal right to civil marriage."
As support to grant legal standing to same sex couples gained momentum and the case slowly moved through the Massachusetts court system, the voices of several individual members of the UU clergy were also heard on this issue, and the list of UU clergy supporting same-sex marriage (and who refused to sign marriage licenses until such rights are granted to all) continued to grow. The Rev. Fred Small (Littleton, MA), the Rev. F. Jay Deacon (Northampton, MA), and the Rev. Stephen Shick (Haverhill, MA) spearheaded action in their communities along with other members of the clergy around the country, and media
coverage of their positions is included here.
Nearly two years after the initial suit was filed, on March 4, 2003, the case,
Goodridge
v. Dept. of Public Health  ,
was heard on appeal in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. On November
18, 2003, the
court issued its ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, in a 4-3 decision .
The Court found that the Commonwealth's law which opposes same sex marriage
is unconstitutional, saying that the state "failed to identify any constitutionally
adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples," but it
stopped short of ordering the Commonwealth to immediately enact same sex marriage.
Instead, the Court ordered the Legislature of the Commonwealth to remedy the
inequitable situation "within 180 days." Attorney Mary Bonauto of
the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), who brought the plaintiff's
case to the Supreme Judicial Court, said at a November 18 press conference,
"In the next 180 days there is little to be done to undo this constitutional
ruling. Today's court decision says that as to liberty and equality there is
no rational reason whatsoever for discrimination against gay or lesbian families.
This is an issue of human equality and dignity, and it is time to treat these
families fairly. In the end the solution is civil marriage, the same thing everyone
else has." UUA President William G. Sinkford issued a statement that day
applauding the ruling of
the Court.
Moving Toward Legal Marriage in May of 2004:
Since that decision was handed down, however, much has been done to try
and delay the court's decision and amend the Constitution of the Commonwealth.
A request by the Massachusetts Senate to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court to clarify whether a civil union bill would meet the terms of the Court's
ruling, received a terse and clear response
on February 4, 2004:
"For no rational reason the marriage laws of the Commonwealth discriminate
against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with the language will eradicate
that stain. The bill would have the effect of maintaining and fostering a stigma
of exclusion that the Constitution prohibits...the answer to the question is
"No." UUA President
Sinkford, reacting to the majority ruling of the Court, said, "...
the court once again has resoundingly affirmed the right to equal protection
and due process for all Massachusetts citizens as guaranteed under the state's
constitution. Unitarian Universalists are delighted by the Court's refusal to
create "a second-class of citizens by status discrimination."
Massachusetts legislators, led by Speaker of the House Thomas Finneran and Senate President Robert Travaglini, met three times in a Constitutional Convention to debate possible amendments to the Constitution, which could not be enacted until 2006. Fierce lobbying occured on both sides, led by the Massachusetts
Family Institute
and a coalition of conservative religious leaders on one side, and
a coalition of groups including the Religious
Coalition for Freedom to Marry ,
the Freedom to Marry
Coalition of Massachusetts ,
and the Massachusetts
Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus
on the other. The Constitutional Convention was observed by UU ministers
from the gallery, and UUs in Massachusetts have shown their sentiments
by hanging banners from their churches (and from the side of the
UUA headquarters building), preaching from the pulpit, participating
in interfaith religious gatherings, and bearing witness in front
of the State House.
On March 25, 2004, the UUA's President Sinkford
joined a group of African American community leaders at a State House press
conference to extend thanks to the African American and Latino/Latina state
legislators who resisted pressure from legislators to vote for an amendment
to the state Constitution restricting the rights of a group of people. Rev.
Sinkford said, "As a straight man, I have never been denied the right to
visit my partner in the hospital. But as a black man, I know what it's like
to attend a segregated school. I have never feared being rejected by my family
because of who I am, but I do know what it's like to have to use separate drinking-fountains.
I have never had to settle for a civil union, but I know what it's like to be
treated as a second-class citizen."
On March 29, 2004, at the third gathering of the Constitutional Convention, an action prohibiting same sex civil marriage but enacting civil unions was passed, moving it forward to another reading in one year's time at another Constitutional Convention. This action, originally sponsored by Rep. Philip Travis but amended and co-sponsored by Rep. Finneran and Sen. Travaglini, was widely billed as a compromise measure, resulting in unhappiness from both those who wish to completely ban same sex marriage and civil unions, and those in favor of legal same sex marriage.
 |
| A human 'rainbow flag' at First Parish Waltham, Massachusetts. |
Although the Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, expressed his opposition
to allowing same-sex marriages to go forward and legal maneuvering continued,
city/town clerks throughout Massachusetts began issuing marriage licenses on
May 17, the date of the 50th anniversary of the historic Brown vs. Board of
Education civil rights ruling. Romney has declared that a 1913 law (designed
to prohibit marriages between people of different races) will be used to prohibit
those from outside the Commonwealth being granted licenses to marry. Despite
this tactic, dozens of same sex couples were married on May 17, with hundreds
more expecting to be married starting on May 20, the first day after the required
three-day waiting period has elapsed after licenses are issued.
A Landmark Day for Civil Rights, and for Love
All seven of the plaintiff couples in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health
were married on May 17, with four of the services conducted by UU ministers.
Among them was the wedding, at 2:00 PM on May 17 in Eliot Hall of the UUA's
headquarters, of Hillary and Julie Goodridge, lead plaintiffs in the case. The
Goodridges marriage ceremony was conducted by longtime friend Deborah Kay and
the Rev. William G. Sinkford, UUA President. Complete coverage of the goodridge
wedding is linked below. Worldwide media coverage has documented the marriages
of the seven plaintiff couples, and many of the links which focus on Freedom
to Marry in Massachusetts, the Unitarian Universalist clergy who performed the
ceremony and most important, the couples they married, is carried below.
For further information on same sex marriage in Massachusetts:
Archival Coverage from the UUA:
Additional Resources:
Archival Coverage from the UUA:
|
by Evan Wolfson. Drum Major Institute, June, 2003
