TITLE

Federal Appeal

AUTHOR(S)
Sunstein, Cass R.
PUB. DATE
December 2003
SOURCE
New Republic;12/22/2003, Vol. 229 Issue 25, p21
SOURCE TYPE
Periodical
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
In its extraordinary decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health last month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a prohibition on same-sex marriage violates the Massachusetts constitution. While the court drew some support from federal precedents, its decision was plainly grounded in previous interpretations of the state constitution and its distinctive guarantees of equality and liberty. The U.S. Constitution was not involved; it was state--not federal--law that formed the basis for this ruling. We should therefore celebrate Goodridge, not only because it ends a form of second-class citizenship for gays and lesbians but also because it exemplifies the federal system at its best. The Massachusetts court's most important conclusion in Goodridge was that the state had failed to produce a "rational basis" for its refusal to allow same-sex couples to marry. And, to be sure, it would be preferable if gay marriage had been ratified by the Massachusetts legislature rather than the state supreme court. The reasonableness of the Massachusetts court's decision does not, however, mean the U.S. Supreme Court should follow suit now or in the near future. Quite the contrary. At the national level, judges ought to show caution in ruling on gay rights. An attempt by the U.S. Supreme Court to settle the same-sex marriage debate at this time would be disastrous, undoubtedly causing a heated public backlash and endangering the cause of gay rights itself. In any case, Congress foresaw the ramifications of a Goodridge-like ruling in 1997 when it passed the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which expressly authorizes states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages even if they are valid in the state where they were performed.
ACCESSION #
11676893

 

Related Articles

  • Discord among same-sex marriage opponents leads to dueling voter initiatives in California.  // Gay & Lesbian Times;9/15/2005, Issue 925, p28 

    Reports that despite their state's history of promoting gay rights, Californians have been split on the subject of same-sex marriage, and this contrast is expected to become even more pronounced because of two overlapping voter initiatives. Goal of opponents to convince voters to amend the state...

  • TIME LINE. Romesburg, Don // Advocate;12/6/2005, Issue 952, p8 

    This article presents a timeline indicating the status of same-sex unions in various parts of the world. In 1989, Denmark passes the first national civil union law, providing limited partner rights to same-sex couples. In 1994, Israel becomes the first Middle Eastern country to provide limited...

  • A Milestone in Marriage. Bednar, Joseph // BusinessWest;May2004, Vol. 21 Issue 1, p45 

    Reports on the implications of the legalized same-sex marriage in the state of Massachusetts. Challenges and responsibilities for business owners and human resource departments; Recognition of the basic rights of gay individuals; Measures being taken by lawmakers on the same-sex marriage issue.

  • Spain to OK same-sex marriage. Wockner, Rex // Bay Windows;9/30/2004, Vol. 22 Issue 42, p16 

    Deals with the decision of the Spanish government to approve a same-sex marriage legislation on October 1, 2004. Percentage of Spaniards who support same-sex civil unions; Legalization of such marriages in Belgium and Netherlands; Publication of books about marriage-like partnership laws in...

  • Support for same-sex marriage ban collapses on Beacon Hill.  // Gay & Lesbian Times;9/15/2005, Issue 925, p26 

    Reports that a fragile coalition of lawmakers in Massachusetts with the goal of supporting an amendment to ban same-sex marriage, has collapsed, virtually guaranteeing same-sex marriage will remain legal in the state. Poll of lawmakers conducted by the Associated Press; Reasons for the collapse.

  • The Center hosts marriage equality forum. Baldman, Anthony // Gay & Lesbian Times;9/15/2005, Issue 925, p17 

    Reports that Equality for All, the California statewide campaign aimed to defeat anti-gay ballot initiatives, is hosting a public forum at The Center in San Diego, California, on September 12, 2005. Goal of educating all San Diegans about the impact of marriage discrimination; Observation that...

  • A PHENOMENOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. Alderson, Kevin G. // Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality;2004, Vol. 13 Issue 2, p107 

    Same-sex marriage was first legalized in the Netherlands in 2001, and now court rulings have legalized it in certain regions of Canada and the United States. What is the experience of gay and lesbian individuals who have married? This phenomenological study is based on interviews with 43...

  • Legislature votes against amendment. Kiritsy, Laura // Bay Windows;7/18/2002, pN.PAG 

    Reports on the decision of the Massachusetts Legislature to vote against the anti-gay Protection of Marriage Amendment, as of July 2002. Reason for the move; Information on the amendment; Reactions from gay activists and their allies.

  • On the offensive.  // Echo Magazine;6/16/2005, Vol. 16 Issue 20, p26 

    Deals with the plan of the American Civil Liberties Union concerning the launch of a national Marriage Campaign in the U.S. in June 2005. Objective of the campaign; Importance of the campaign to the legalization of same-sex marriage in the country; Remarks from American Civil Liberties Union...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics