A decision by the Massachusetts highest court is expected any day in a gay advocacy group's challenge to state laws limiting marriage to members of opposite sex.

On April 11, 2001, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed suit in Suffolk County Superior Court on behalf of seven same-sex couples demanding that the Massachusetts Department of Public Health issue them marriage licenses. The lawsuit seeks to invalidate Massachusetts marriage laws requiring that the applicants be of the opposite sex, alleging that this requirement violates numerous provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution's Declaration of Rights.

On May 8, 2002, Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Thomas Connolly granted the Attorney General's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the lawsuit. The court ruled:

"[t]he Massachusetts Declaration of Rights does not guarantee the fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex. Same-sex marriage is not deeply rooted in the Commonwealth's history and tradition. By excluding the plaintiffs from marriage, the Commonwealth does not deprive the plaintiffs of their right to substantive due process, liberty, freedom of speech or freedom of association."

The ruling further stated that the Massachusetts legislature's decision to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples is rationally related to a legitimate state interest:

"Recognizing that procreation is marriage's central purpose, it is rational for the Legislature to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples who, theoretically, are capable of procreation."

In response to the argument that Massachusetts law is inconsistent in allowing same-sex couples to establish legal relationships with their children but not with each other, the court deferred to elected representatives to resolve such issues. Trial Court's Full Decision

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court granted direct appellate review of the trial court's decision. The parties have briefed the issues and arguments before the full bench were heard on March 4, 2003. The GLAD position was supported by 11 "friend of the court" briefs and the Massachusetts position was supported by 15 "friend of the court" briefs. A decision is expected imminently.

Meanwhile, an initiative is underway in Massachusetts to amend the state constitution to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriage.

More information

Lewis v. Harris
Docket #15-03, Mercer County Super. Ct. (N.J.)

A New Jersey trial court has been asked to dismiss a claim by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund that state marriage laws violate the New Jersey constitution. The court heard arguments on the issue on June 27, 2003, a year after suit was filed.

On June 26, 2002, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund filed suit on behalf of seven same-sex couples challenging the constitutionality of New Jersey marriage laws. The lawsuit, now pending in Mercer County Superior Court, names the state registrar of vital statistics and seven local clerks and registrars as defendants.

The complaint includes claims that the New Jersey laws violate the plaintiffs right to equal protection of the law and deny plaintiffs their fundamental right to marry. Lambda argues that New Jersey's prohibition against same-sex marriage is based on outdated assumptions about gender roles and the purpose of marriage, which it claims does not intrinsically require opposite sex participants. The State Attorney General has moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that "the power to define marriage rests with the Legislature" and "plaintiffs must pursue their goals in the halls of the Statehouse." It is not known when the court will issue its ruling.

More information

Morrison v. Sadler
Docket #49D13-0211-PL-001946, Marion County Super. Ct. (Ind.)

On May 7, 2003, an Indiana Superior Court upheld the state's Defense of Marriage statute, affirming marriage as the basis of a free society.

The decision was issued in a suit brought in Marion County Superior Court in August 2002, by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union on behalf of three same-sex couples. The suit initially sought either issuance of marriage licenses to the three same-sex couples, or, alternatively, recognition of their Vermont civil union licenses. In response to arguments made by the Indiana Attorney General, the plaintiffs later dropped the civil union recognition claim, leaving only the quest for marriage licenses to be decided by the court. This claim was also the first to directly challenge the constitutionality of a state defense of marriage act (DOMA).

On May 7, 2003, Indiana Judge S.K. Reid upheld the Indiana marriage law in a strongly worded opinion acknowledging marriage and the traditional family as "the basic living unit of our free society." In addition, Judge Reid held that traditional marriage laws are closely tied to "the state's interest in encouraging procreation to occur in a context where both biological parents are present to raise the child."

In dismissing the lawsuit, the opinion noted that plaintiffs have proposed a fundamental redefinition of marriage. In articulating the basis for a redefinition which would include same-sex couples, however, Judge Reid concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to present any "principled theory" why marriage, if understood simply as a long-term, stable relationship, would not apply equally to groups of three or more.

The decision from the Marion County Superior Court is expected to be appealed, and will likely reach the Indiana Supreme Court before being finally resolved.

More information