Background Information I Online Resources I Related Cases

Background Information
By Dubravka Colic '06

After the Suffolk Superior Court (a Massachusetts trial court) dismissed the lawsuit brought by Julie and Hilary Goodridge and six other same-sex couples seeking a right to marry in the case, Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court. Oral argument was heard in March 2003. In mid-July 2003, the SJC indicated that it would exceed its internal deadline of issuing an opinion within 130 days after oral argument, and refrained from saying just when it would announce its ruling.

In the meantime, debates continue over the many questions this case has raised. Supporters of the right to marry argue that homosexuals are being denied the fundamental right to marry the partners of their choice, depriving them of the many legal protections and privileges married couples enjoy. Opponents of same-sex marriage express concern over the fate of marriage as an institution. They claim that same-sex couples are seeking not only to secure the right to marriage, but also that they intend to redefine marriage, which until now has been the union of two unrelated individuals of opposite sexes.

While same-sex partners continue seek recognition of their love and commitment in the form of a marriage recognized by the state, many object to this expansive view of marriage and family. If the requirement for heterosexuality in marriage is removed, opponents of the same-sex marriage argue, legalization of polygamy or incest could also follow in the same way, further altering the legal definition of marriage. In the end, all must simply wait for the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court on this matter.

Back to top

Online Resources

Alliance for Marriage: More Children Raised in a Home with a Mother and a Father

American Family Association

"Bill to Define Marriage Tried Again in House as Two States Mull Cases" by Cheryl Wetzstein
The Washington Post

The Center for Reclaiming America

Family, Laity and Youth:
"Statement on Same-Sex Marriage" (full article)
U.S. Catholic Bishops

Family Research Council

Official Site of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints
(Note: Use the site's search feature to access several articles stating the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints' position against same sex marriage.)

Same-Sex Marriage Bibliography
The State Library of Massachusetts

"Talking Points on Marriage" by Robert H. Knight
Concerned Women for America

Back to top

Bowers v. Hardwick , U.S. Supreme Court (1986)

Text of decision
Cornell Law School

"Reorienting Bowers v. Hardwick" [PDF]
Marc S. Spindelman, Moritz College of Law
Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader version 4 or later.
Download the latest version.

Summary of the Case
By Dubravka Colic '06

In August 1982, a Georgia police officer arrested Michael Hardwick and his adult male partner in Hardwick’s home, on the charge of sodomy. Although the charges against the men were later dropped, Hardwick pursued his challenge to the Georgia state law, hoping the courts would declare it unconstitutional. The Federal District Court dismissed the case, but the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed it, ruling that the Georgia law violated Hardwick’s constitutional right to privacy, which encompassed his right to engage in sexual activity of his choice in his own home. The case reached the United States Supreme Court in 1986. In a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, declaring the Georgia sodomy law constitutional. The Supreme Court found that nothing in the Constitution extends a fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in acts of consensual sodomy, thereby allowing Georgia and other states with similar laws to keep them in place. The late Justice Lewis Powell, whose swing vote decided this case, stated on several occasions after his retirement from the Court that his vote might have been a mistake. This must have been so -- the Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision in 2003 struck down the Texas anti-sodomy law and overruled Bowers, correcting Powell’s "mistake."

Back to top

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Oral arguments before the Supreme Judicial Court [PDF]
Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader version 4 or later.
Download the latest version.

Full text of decision
FindLaw

General information and related articles
www.sodomylaws.org

Summary of the Case
By Dubravka Colic '06

In 2003, the US Supreme Court struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law which made only ‘deviant sexual behavior’ between homosexuals illegal; heterosexual partners were not reached by the statute. Under this law, John Lawrence and his male partner were convicted of engaging in sexual intercourse in Lawrence’s home. The two men requested a new trial and challenged the constitutionality of the Texas law, but their conviction was affirmed. Shortly thereafter, a divided Court of Appeals heard the case, but rejected the constitutional arguments and affirmed the men's convictions. When the case reached the Supreme Court, it became clear that the Supreme Court needed to rule on the Texas law, and in doing so, to reconsider their 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick. With three Justices dissenting, the Supreme Court reversed Bowers, ruling the Texas law unconstitutional because it did not provide equal protection for homosexual and heterosexual couples. This landmark decision for gay rights activists assured that same sex couples could now enjoy the liberty to engage in consensual sexual conduct in every state.

Back to top

Hillary Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health (200?)

First page of complaint
www.legalcasedocs.com

General information and articles
www.marriagewatch.org

Litigation history
www.glad.org

Summary of the Case
By Dubravka Colic '06

Hilary and Julie Goodridge had been a couple for over thirteen years and were raising a five year old daughter when they filed a complaint at the Suffolk Superior Court in April 2001, together with six other similarly situated same-sex couples. Their attorneys, from New England’s Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, sought a declaratory judgment that the exclusion from marriage of the Plaintiffs and other qualified same-sex couples, violated the Massachusetts law and denied them the fundamental right to marry the partner of their choice. In May 2002, the Superior Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, ruling that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, and that the Commonwealth’s marriage laws cannot be interpreted gender-neutrally, as they were intended to limit marriage to a union between a man and a woman. Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, which heard this landmark case in March of 2003. The Court's decision is expected sometime in 2003.

Back to top