William
T. Clew, Catholic Free Press, Worcester Diocese, Jan. 3, 2003, at 1.
BOSTON - The Massachusetts Catholic Conference (MCC)
has joined several other organizations and individuals in an amici curiae
(friend-of-the-court) brief opposing a suit by seven same-sex couples who demand that the
state issue them marriage licenses.
The Massachusetts Catholic Conference is the public policy office for the Catholic Church
in the commonwealth, governed by the archbishop of Boston and the bishops of the
Worcester, Springfield and Fall River dioceses.
The friend-of-the-court brief filed by the MCC argues that the definition of marriage as
the legal union of one man and one woman is one that “has been a fundamental of our
(and every) society from time immemorial.” It is upheld by the commonwealth and by
all jurisdictions in the United States, the brief argues.
It strongly urges the court to reject the suit of the plaintiffs, which it calls “an
invitation to redefine marriage to suit their individual interests.”
The MCC friend-of-the-court brief makes several arguments in defense of the traditional
view of marriage. The brief says that traditional marriage ensures the continuity of human
life, enforces and hands down social norms, integrates the sexes, benefits children and
affirms an ideal means of human relations conducive to survival which cannot be furthered
in any other way.
“In view of these factors,” the brief states, “government has a compelling
interest in promoting the committed union of a man and a woman as marriage.”
The MCC brief states that, of all the interests Massachusetts “advances through its
laws, few if any are of greater importance to the health and ultimate survival of society
than the preservation and promotion of male-female marriage. As society’s most primal
institution, marriage is at the heart of human community. It creates the most important
relation in life. It is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there
would be neither civilization nor progress.”
It argues that at various times and places throughout history marriage may not always have
been monogamous, interracial marriages may have been frowned upon, consent of the parties
may not always have been required and love may not have been relevant.
But there always has been one constant, the brief states: “Marriage has always,
without exception, been heterosexual. The most basic requirement of marriage is that it
consists of a male and a female.”
The MCC brief concluded: “We respectfully urge the court not to tamper with the
age-old definition of marriage.”
The plaintiffs, after having been refused marriage licenses, filed suit against the state
Department of Public Health and Dr. Howard Koh, commissioner. The suit was filed in
Suffolk Superior Court in April 2001. The court ruled in May 2002, against the plaintiffs,
who appealed to the state Supreme Judicial Court. Arguments before that court are expected
early this year.
The suit argues that the plaintiffs share the same right to marry as their fellow
citizens. The choice of a marital partner has been left to the individual without state
interference, the suit states. Case law and statutes show that the choice of a marital
partner is one of the essential and unalienable rights protected by the Declaration of
Rights in Article I of the state Constitution, according to the suit.
There is nothing in the marriage statutes dictating that marriage is restricted to a man
and a woman, the plaintiffs argued. Article I of the state Constitution prohibits
abridgement of equal treatment under the law because of sex, race, color, creed or
national origin.
References in the General Laws of Massachusetts that use the terms “husband” and
“wife” relate to those already married or recently divorced and should be
considered gender neutral, the plaintiffs argued.
The suit states that the plaintiffs meet such state requirements for a marriage license as
passing blood tests, are not closely related, are of legal age and are not married to
others. It argues that the Supreme Judicial Court should declare that the plaintiffs are
entitled to have marriage licenses.
The plaintiffs are Richard Lindell and Gary Chalmers of Northbridge, who have adopted a
10-year-old girl; Hillary and Julie Goodridge of Boston, raising a 7-year-old daughter
borne by one of the women; Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade of Boston, parents of a
13-year-old girl; Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies of Orleans, Heidi Norton and Gina Smith
of Northampton, parents of sons 6 and 2 years old, and Michael Horgan and Ed Balmelli of
Boston.
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), joined by several other organizations
and individuals, also filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the suit by the
plaintiffs.
The GLAD brief argues that the state cannot justify excluding same sex couple from
marrying and the protection marriage provides. It argues that the right to marry a person
of one’s choice is protected by the Massachusetts Constitution.
Exclusion because of the sex of one’s partner is sex discrimination, amounts to
unequal treatment, is arbitrary and harmful to gay men and lesbians and makes them, their
families and children second class citizens, the GLAD brief states.
Among those joining the MCC friend-of-the-court brief, according to the MCC, are the
Massachusetts State Council of the Knights of Columbus, the Ethics and Religious Liberty
Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Greek Orthodox Diocese of Boston and
the Hierarch of Boston and New England, his eminence Metropolitan Methodios; the National
Association of Evangelicals, the New England Church of the Nazarene and district
superintendent, Rev. Charles E. Zink, Jr.; Grand Rabbi Y.A. Korff, Congregation Bnai Jacob
of Boston and Newton; Rev. Robert E. Baril, First Assembly of God, Framingham; Rev. Steven
James Chin, Boston Chinese Evangelical Church; Rev. James Ennis, Church of the Nazarene at
Trolley Square, Framingham; Rev. Dick Germaine, First Congregational Church, Hopkinton,
and Rev. Samuel J. Hollo, Westgate Church, Weston.
Among those joining the GLAD friend-of-the-court brief, according to GLAD, are the Greater
Boston Civil Rights Coalition, the Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts, The
Massachusetts Black Women Attorneys, Massachusetts NOW, Massachusetts Association of
Hispanic Attorneys, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of
Social Workers, the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, the Unitarian Universalist
Association, the Boston Bar Association and several law firms.
Published on the website of the
Massachusetts Catholic Conference at http://www.macathconf.org