By JENNIFER PETER
Associated Press Writer


BOSTON - The first anniversary of the court decision sanctioning gay marriage in Massachusetts was marked with little fanfare Thursday, but both sides in the controversy said it was simply the calm before a renewed political and legal storm.

Lawyers at Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, which represented the seven same-sex couples who filed the landmark lawsuit, are poised to appeal a second case to the Supreme Judicial Court on behalf of out-of-state gay couples who are currently barred from marrying here.

Conservative groups, heartened by the success of anti-gay marriage ballot questions in 11 states earlier this month, are retooling their local opposition to focus on the public schools, where they say teachers now feel free to promote gay issues.

The Massachusetts Family Institute issued a pamphlet this fall, warning parents "how same-sex marriage will affect your school." Distributed through churches and conservative organizations, the brochure shares anecdotes about how 7-year-old "Patrick" was told by his teacher that homosexuality was normal and how "Stacey," a sixth-grader, called her parents bigots after one of her teachers had said that opponents of gay marriage were bigoted.

Such anecdotes are likely to become fodder for the second round of the Legislature's debate on a constitutional amendment that would revoke gay marriage privileges while providing civil union benefits to same-sex couples. The Legislature narrowly passed such a measure earlier this year but must approve it again before it could wind up on the November 2006 ballot.

"Children are being indoctrinated in our public schools on the validity and moral superiority of same-sex marriage," said Massachusetts Family Institute President Kris Mineau, sounding what is likely to be a central theme for conservatives in upcoming legislative debates. "This is unacceptable. No society should be doing this to its children."

Gay rights advocates call this a desperate ploy and say opponents' predictions about the evils of same-sex marriage have not come true in the six months since the first weddings began taking place on May 17.

"No longer can they assert that gay folks marrying will bring about the end of western civilization, because it hasn't, and no longer can they assert that it will destroy the institution of marriage, because it hasn't," said Arline Isaacson, co-leader of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. "So they're desperate for something else and they've come up with this truly bogus premise about schools."

The crowds that packed the Statehouse during earlier protracted debate on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages were absent Thursday from Beacon Hill.

But a group of gay marriage opponents who want to impeach the four judges who signed on to the decision marked the day with a gathering on the town green in Lexington. The group had once planned to burn the judges in effigy. Instead, someone dressed as Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, who wrote the decision, and burned a copy of the state Constitution.

In Springfield, the Faith In Action Team scheduled a candlelight vigil in honor of traditional marriage across from City Hall.

In Boston, a few of the plaintiff couples in the gay marriage case were slated to join gay rights advocates for a panel discussion on the "future of marriage equality."

The real fireworks, however, will begin when lawmakers return in January to consider the constitutional amendment to revoke gay marriage.

While nationally the momentum appears to have swung against gay marriage, it is unclear where things stand in Massachusetts now that at least 3,000 marriages have taken place. But dozens of lawmakers were re-elected in November despite their support for same-sex weddings.

It may seem like a bittersweet memory now, but recall what an exceptional day this was when the MA high court became the first to grant us full U.S. citizenship.

Nowadays, seems all we get is crap like the above. What, these folks want schools to teach that homosexuality is abnormal? And this is in Massachusetts. Disgusting. "Stacey"' was probably right

Actually, I sort of resent this story by AP. Yeah, the opposition stuff needs to be in it, but how about accentuating the positive first.... This was a landmark decision.

Here's a link to the Goodridge opinion:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/...ge111803opn.pdf

And here is the Unofficial Synopsis Prepared by the Reporter of Decisions:

The Supreme Judicial Court held today that "barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person could marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution." The court stayed the entry of judgment for 180 days "to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."

"Marriage is a vital social institution," wrote Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall for the majority of the Justices. "The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In turn it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations." The question before the court was "whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution," the Commonwealth could deny those protections, benefits, and obligations to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.

In ruling that the Commonwealth could not do so, the court observed that the Massachusetts Constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals," and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens." It reaches its conclusion, the court said, giving "full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth." The Commonwealth, the court ruled, "has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples."

The court affirmed that it owes "great deference to the Legislature to decide social and policy issues." Where, as here, the constitutionality of a law is challenged, it is the "traditional and settled role" of courts to decide the constitutional question. The "marriage ban" the court held, "works a deep and scarring hardship" on same-sex families "for no rational reason." It prevents children of same-sex couples "from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of 'a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized."' "It cannot be rational under our laws," the court held, "to penalize children by depriving them of State benefits" because of their parents' sexual orientation.

The court rejected the Commonwealth's claim that the primary purpose of marriage was procreation. Rather, the history of the marriage laws in the Commonwealth demonstrates that "it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of marriage."

The court remarked that its decision "does not disturb the fundamental value of marriage in our society." "That same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage's solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support, and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit," the court stated.

The opinion reformulates the common-law definition of civil marriage to mean "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. Nothing that "civil marriage has long been termed a 'civil right,"' the court concluded that "the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice, subject to appropriate government restrictions in the interests of public health, safety, and welfare."

Same-sex marriages started happening in MA about 6 months ago. Since then, about 1/3 of all the marriages in the state have been same-sex couples. I expect that proportion to drop quite a bit after the backlog of marriage-minded same-sex couples drops. There are even quite a few marriage announcements in the newspapers for same-sex couples.

I must admit that it's really sweet to live in this blue-state island of sanity.

Rox,
During the 80s and 90s MA and MN were the two progressive states (outside of CA) that often juggled 1 and 2 top billings in education and healthcare outcomes, and social innovations. Since I worked for a state agency during those decades, I looked at comparative state stats regularly and always felt a kinship with the folks in MA.

Things have changed in MN but I'm hoping the pendulum swings back the other way soon!

I wish they waited one year longer, not for any other reason except if they did, John Kerry would probably be president. The gay marriage legalization here (I'm now living in Mass) , gave George Bush's massachussetts liberal slur alot more weight in the eyes of all those red state voters. It was absolutely used as an election issue, and in close states like Ohio, it probably made the difference. This is in no way blaming gay civil rights movement for the loss, it's actually blaming the intolerant people like Jerry Fallwell and the morally challenged religious right. Kerry also is to blame, had he put the gay rights issue firmly into a civil rights category(where it truly belongs) instead of letting Bush and company paint it as a moral one, he might have overcame the assault by religious right. He needed to make it into a law issue, saying something like even if we as americans do not personally agree with homosexuality, this country has always defended and given equal rights to all people. A gay marriage ban would be as unconstitutional as banning a certain religion, race or group. We have no legal or moral stand that can block freedom and equality from being spread and given to all members of society. This issue is not a moral one it is a legal one and the law and principals our country was founded on must be applied to all, even people you may not personally agree with. That way he could do the right thing, without being seen as a sympathetic Massachussetts liberal. I believe in the long run , our country , the gay movement, and all democrats would have been better served had the Gays up here waited one year though.

All things considered, the timing could have been better. Sometimes I wonder if the timing of the decision was tweaked by someone or some organization, for the express purpose of influencing the national elections.

Just so you know, the Goodridge case was originally filed in the Superior Court on April 11, 2001. The Supreme Court opinion was handed down on November 18, 2003.

Republicans chose to make an issue of it, and to use it for fundraising and GOTV efforts. But there are a number of surveys indicating that the effect on the election of this issue, and of "moral values" as a whole has been overblown.

Examples: http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Ca...ntDisplay.cfm#1


Even Charles Krauthammer agrees -- here is his explanation:

"Its origins lie in a single question in the Election Day exit poll. The urban myth grew around the fact that "moral values" ranked highest in the answer to Question J: 'Which ONE issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president?'

"It is a thin reed upon which to base a General Theory of the '04 Election. In fact, it is no reed at all. The way the question was set up, moral values were sure to be ranked disproportionately high. Why? Because it was a multiple-choice question, and moral values cover a group of issues, while all the other choices were individual issues. Chop up the alternatives finely enough, and moral values are sure to get a bare plurality over the others."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Nov11.html

Isn't it though? We produce some great things here in good ol' MA.