Wednesday, February 04, 2004
Marriage, not civil unions
The highest court in Massachusetts declared yesterday that the state legislature may not offer "civil union" instead of marriage for same-sex couples, a ruling that paves the way for the first state-recognized same-sex marriages in U.S. history.
The ruling, which amplified the Supreme Judicial Court's Nov. 18 decision striking down Massachusetts's opposite-sex-only marriage laws, was delivered in an advisory opinion sought by the state Senate.
After the November ruling, the Senate took up a bill that would have granted same-sex couples all "the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage" -- but called the arrangement something else. That was the approach Vermont's legislature took when it set up civil unions after that state's high court ruled in 1999 that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples unlawfully denied equal benefits to same-sex couples. . . .
. . .By eliminating the possibility of a legislative alternative, the decision left opponents of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts with no option other than an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as an opposite-sex institution only. But under Massachusetts law, the earliest such an amendment could be adopted is 2006.
Getting closer!
posted by chris at 10:33 PM
------------------
|
