Responses of Roman Catholic Bishops in Massachusetts to Goodridge Decision
Nov. 18, 2003
Today's vote by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court rejects society's long held understanding of marriage as a union of a man and a
woman. I am dismayed and disappointed by this decision. The closeness of the four to three
vote demonstrates that this interpretation was not obvious and that all are not in
agreement with redefining marriage. Marriage is a natural institution and a sacred union
rooted in the divine plan. The ruling is also an affront to the legislative
process that was already underway for a constitutional amendment to affirm marriage as we
have always understood it in society, and that process is supported by over 100,000
Massachusetts voters. I join the many voices around our Commonwealth in urging our
legislature not to abandon their constituents in the months ahead and keep the Marriage
Affirmation and Protection Amendment alive for the 2006 ballot. Statement of Bishop George Coleman, Bishop of Fall River The marriage of a man and a woman is not just one form of association or
institutional model among many others. Marriage as the union between a man and a woman has
served the common good by providing children with both a mother and father, and by
bringing men and women together according to the moral order. I reject the attempt to
reduce all intimate personal relationships to the same level, leading to the disappearance
of the civil institution of marriage as understood in all human societies since time
immemorial. Statement of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference Goodridge Ruling
“Radical” and “Devastating” Brief Legal Analysis of Goodridge Daniel Avila, Esq., Associate Director for Policy & Research Delivered at Nov. 18 Press Conference at the State House I
would like to give a brief legal analysis of today’s ruling in Goodridge. I want to note especially the ruling’s
probable and far-reaching impact on the lives of individuals and the policies of religious
institutions in First,
the Court’s majority accuses those who believe that marriage should be defined as the
union between one man and one woman of wanting to harm gays and lesbians. In part IIIA of the ruling, the majority opinion
says that “history must yield to a more fully developed understanding of the
invidious quality of the discrimination”. The
dictionary defines invidiousness as the desire to harm.
In part IIIB, the majority claims that “the marriage restriction is
rooted in persistent prejudices against persons who are (or who are believed to be)
homosexual.” Those are harsh and
unfounded accusations! Second,
the majority goes on to say that “The Constitution cannot control such prejudices but
neither can it tolerate them. . . . the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them
effect.” Those very words signal the
Court’s desire to change not only the marriage license policy, but also to change
every other law that can be viewed as, in some way or fashion, giving effect to the
traditional understanding of marriage. For
instance, our state’s anti-discrimination laws will now have to be applied to
individual and institutional behavior that reflects that understanding. The majority specifically refers to the
anti-discrimination laws. So this ruling goes
far beyond any issue of performing religious ceremonies. For
example, this will mean that landlords will no longer be able to refuse to rent to
same-sex couples whom the landlords deem to be living in an unmarried, and therefore
immoral, sexual relationship. If the
prospective renters have a marriage license, the refusal to rent will be actionable as
discrimination. Also, religious institutions,
such as hospitals, schools, and charities, will have to change their employment policies
to recognize same-sex couples with marriage licenses as spouses. The Catholic Church, as announced by the The
Justices could point to no other justification for their ruling than their own beliefs. They have ordered the legislature to act within
180 days. That means the legislature is now
being forced to change all the laws that address marriage, including the
anti-discrimination laws. This is a travesty. Constitutional rulings of this magnitude
historically have followed public consensus emerging in the form of constitutional
amendments. Those few rulings that failed to
follow this pattern have evoked universal scorn and public backlash. This Court acted without any public consensus to
back its belief that we who oppose their opinion are no better than bigots. Now it is time for the people, acting through the
referendum process, to be given a chance to respond.
"The decision announced today in the Goodridge case is disappointing and should be
reversed. It is my hope that the state Legislature will send the Marriage Affirmation and
Protection Amendment to the 2006 ballot to let the people of Massachusetts reaffirm
marriage as the union of one man and one woman.