The Supreme Court of Massachusetts found the following conclusion: “The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.” Goodridge vs. Dept. of Public Health (2003).
Massachusetts was not the only state to find no reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. The Supreme Court of Florida also asked itself if same-sex marriage passed two tests. 1. Does it pass the “rational basis test” and 2. Is it a “suspect” classification, in other words, is there a fundamental human right implicated in the legislation with regard to same-sex marriage.
The court found that “It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage to opposite-sex partners” and that “the fact alone that the discrimination has been sanctioned by the state for many years does not supply such constitutional justification.” I would like to point out that the court does two important things within these quotes. First, it states that preventing same-sex marriage is discrimination, and Second, that allowing same-sex marriage is as rational as it is constitutional.
Even Florida’s moderately republican Chief Justice Ronald M. George, said he sees the fight for equality of same-sex couples as tantamount to that of the one fought by African-Americans. He told Time magazine that, “I think there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe.” From a judicial standpoint Justice George was simply following the precedent set in the case of Romer v Evans (1996) which stated that legislation adverse to homosexuals was to be reviewed under “strict scrutiny” so that it did not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
A History of the Legal Standing of the Definition of Marriage 
From Massachusetts to Florida
The Supreme Court of Massachusetts found the following conclusion: “The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.” Goodridge vs. Dept. of Public Health (2003).
Massachusetts was not the only state to find no reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. The Supreme Court of Florida also asked itself if same-sex marriage passed two tests. 1. Does it pass the “rational basis test” and 2. Is it a “suspect” classification, in other words, is there a fundamental human right implicated in the legislation with regard to same-sex marriage.
The court found that “It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage to opposite-sex partners” and that “the fact alone that the discrimination has been sanctioned by the state for many years does not supply such constitutional justification.” I would like to point out that the court does two important things within these quotes. First, it states that preventing same-sex marriage is discrimination, and Second, that allowing same-sex marriage is as rational as it is constitutional.
Even Florida’s moderately republican Chief Justice Ronald M. George, said he sees the fight for equality of same-sex couples as tantamount to that of the one fought by African-Americans. He told Time magazine that, “I think there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe.” From a judicial standpoint Justice George was simply following the precedent set in the case of Romer v Evans (1996) which stated that legislation adverse to homosexuals was to be reviewed under “strict scrutiny” so that it did not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
Share this:
Related