Same Sex Marriage

Legal Options For Same-Sex Marriage

State Litigation. Massachusetts, unlike twenty-six States and the federal government, has not adopted a “defense of marriage statute” defining marriage as a union between a man and woman. On April 11, 2001, a Boston-based, homosexual rights group, Gay Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) filed suit against the Massachusetts Department of Public Health on behalf of seven same-sex couples.

In Washington DC the following are some same sex marriage noted legal codes

• DC Domestic Partners Law: (D.C. CODE 32-701-710)
  All couples registered as domestic partners are entitled to the same rights as legal family members to visit their domestic partners in the hospital and make decisions concerning health.
• DC Domestic Partners Law: (D.C. CODE 32-701-710)
  All couples registered as domestic partners are entitled to the same rights as legal family members to visit their domestic partners in the hospital and make decisions concerning health.
• DC Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law: (D.C. CODE 32-701-710)
  No provision of Washington DC law bans recognition of marriages between same-sex couples performed in another jurisdiction. The district’s domestic partnership registration allows same-sex couples the opportunity to formalize relationships.

Contact Lynn Andretta to discuss your legal options and find solutions for any Same Sex Marriage issue and related legal situations in Washington DC area.

The plaintiffs claimed that “refusing same-sex couples the opportunity to apply for a marriage license” violates Massachusetts’ law and various portions of the Massachusetts Constitution. GLAD’s brief argued the existence of a fundamental right to marry “the person of one’s choosing” in the due process provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution and asserted that the marriage laws, which allow both men and women to marry, violate equal protection provisions.

The Superior Court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments after exploring the application of the word marriage, the construction of marriage statutes and finally, the historical purpose of marriage. The trial court found that based on history and the actions of the people’s elected representatives, a right to same-sex marriage was not so rooted in tradition that a failure to recognize it violated fundamental liberty, nor was it implicit in ordered liberty.

Moreover, the court held that in excluding same sex couples from marriage, the Commonwealth did not deprive them of substantive due process, liberty, or freedom of speech or association. The court went on to find that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples was rationally related to a legitimate state interest in encouraging procreation. On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overruled the lower court and held that under the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth could not deny the protections, benefits, and obligations attendant on marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.

The court concluded that interpreting the statutory term “marriage” to apply only to male female unions, lacked a rational basis for either due process or equal protection purposes under the state’s constitution. Moreover, the court found that such a limitation was not justified by the state’s interest in providing a favorable setting for procreation and had no rational relationship to the state’s interests in ensuring that children be raised in optimal settings and in conservation of state and private financial resources.

The court reasoned that the laws of civil marriage did not privilege procreative heterosexual intercourse, nor contain any requirement that applicants for marriage licenses attest to their ability or intention to conceive children by coitus. Moreover, the court reasoned that the state has no power to provide varying levels of protection to children based on the circumstances of birth. As for the state’s interest in conserving scarce state and private financial resources, the court found that the state failed to produce any evidence to support its assertion that same sex couples were less financially interdependent than opposite-sex couples.

In addition, Massachusetts marriage laws do not condition receipt of public and private financial benefits to married individuals on a demonstration of financial dependence on each other. As this decision is based on the Commonwealth’s constitution, it is not re viewable by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court stayed its decision for 180 days to give the Legislature time to enact legislation “as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion.”

On February 3, 2004, the court ruled, in an advisory opinion to the state senate, that civil unions are not the constitutional equivalent of civil marriage. The court reasoned that the establishment of civil unions for same-sex couples would create a separate class of citizens by status discrimination which would violate the equal protection and due process requirements of the Constitution of the Commonwealth.

Contact Lynn Andretta to discuss your legal options and find solutions for any Same Sex Marriage issue and related legal situations in Washington DC area.

[ Top ]