(November 2003)
Barb Dougan, issue editor, writes:
Last summer, when we decided that this issue would focus on the Equal Marriage case, it seemed like perfect timing. Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health had been argued before the SJC in March and most everyone assumed that a decision would issue by the end of the summer. As of press time, however, the SJC still had not ruled. But our focus on the Goodridge case remains timely, given many recent developments.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Lawrence v. Texas, striking down a Texas anti-sodomy criminal statute as a violation of the right to privacy. That same month, Ontario’s highest court not only struck down prohibitions on same-sex marriage but ordered an immediate end to such bans.
Of course, anti-gay conservatives have become more active as well, switching their focus from abortion and school vouchers to an all out assault on the efforts of gays and lesbians to be treated as full members of society. In response to Lawrence, a Federal Marriage Amendment was proposed (H. J. Res. 56), which would amend the U.S. Constitution. Hearings were held in September. It is expected that the FMA will be part of the Republican 04 platform. Locally, the "Super-DOMA" (Defense of Marriage Act), H.B. 3109, is on the agenda for the state legislature’s Constitutional Convention on November 12. Many of us testified against this proposed amendment to the state constitution at last spring’s hearings.
While there are similar cases in New Jersey and Indiana, most national attention has been focused on Massachusetts. A leader in the drive to amend the U.S. Constitution predicts that if the Goodridge plaintiffs win, the federal DOMA and similar laws in 37 states will "crumble." Could we be so lucky? Conservatives in the Senate have not introduced a counterpart bill to amend the Constitution because they are waiting to see how the SJC rules.
In this issue, one of the Goodridge lawyers, Karen Loewy, gives an overview of the plaintiffs’ claims. Our second article is a summary of the "civil rights" amicus brief filed in Goodridge, which the Massachusetts NLG co-signed. John Pollock contributes our third article, in which he analyzes the two main legal theories used to argue for same-sex marriage. Finally, we kick off our new feature, "Profile of a Member," by speaking with family law and personal injury attorney Robert Berks, a long time Guild member. We hope you find this special issue of Mass Dissent moving and informative.
To read the complete newsletter, join the Guild or order a subscription today.
