Jan 30, 2004  |  By: ADRIAN BRUNE  | COMMENTS     

Writing that "separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled Wednesday that the state Legislature cannot substitute civil unions for full marriage rights to satisfy its November decision that denying marriage rights to gays is unconstitutional.

The decision paves the way for the nation's first same-sex marriages to take place in the Bay State beginning in mid-May.

"The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals and forbids the creation of second-class citizens," the four justices in favor of marriage wrote on the advisory opinion. "The [proposed Senate] bill maintains an unconstitutional, inferior and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."

The ruling came as a response to an inquiry from the state Senate questioning whether a bill allowing for Vermont-style civil unions — with all the benefits of marriage — would satisfy the court. The justices emphatically declared it would not, stating that the distinction would create a discriminatory classification for gays.

"It comes as no surprise to most people that the court upheld its earlier ruling for equality and fairness," said Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques, a former Massachusetts state senator. "As a former legislator, I’m confident that lawmakers will focus on what’s important to Massachusetts families and embrace this as a positive step forward.

"It’s time to turn attention to important issues that strengthen the families of Massachusetts, rather than focusing on a divisive and costly battle to write discrimination into the state Constitution."

The Supreme Judicial Court gave the Legislature 180 days to enact its ruling that same-sex couples have the constitutional right to marry.

Opponents of gay marriage rights are calling for an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. A Constitutional Convention is scheduled to convene next Wednesday.

The wording of the first ruling left Massachusetts lawmakers without a clear understanding of whether or not civil unions would satisfy the court's decision, legal experts said. As a result, the state Senate sought the advisory opinion read into the Senate record this morning. Without the opinion, the vote on next week's state constitutional amendment would have been delayed, according to Senate President Robert Travaglini.

When it was issued in November, the 4-3 ruling sparked nationwide protest among politicians, religious leaders and others opposed to gay marriage. The issue even crept into President Bush's State of the Union address in which he vowed to pursue the Federal Marriage Amendment to protect traditional marriage if "activist judges" continue to rewrite marriage law.

Today's decision runs completely counter to the 1999 decision of the Vermont high court, which allowed its state Legislature to choose between civil unions as an acceptable parallel institution or gay marriage. Vermont lawmakers passed civil union legislation, and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean signed it into law the following year.

"The state’s highest court did the only thing it could do in the face of such glaring discrimination against hard-working, taxpaying couples and their children in Massachusetts," Jacques said. "Today, the court reaffirmed its fair-minded and historic decision."