Tuesday, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts handed down a widely anticipated ruling that the rights of a civil marriage could not be denied to gay couples. As with all news stories, the intricacies of the opinion were lost on those reporting it, valuing sensationalism over straight reporting. \Gay Marriage Gains Victory In Massachusetts,"" reported The New York Times. ""Gay Marriage Is a Right, Massachusetts Court Rules,"" according to The Washington Post. The truth is not as clear-cut as that, and failure to properly understand this could endanger the cause of gay rights.
On page 36 of their opinion, the court stated, ""We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution ... Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion.""
The matter has been sent to the Legislature for the next six months. The Legislature now has a few options before it. If it does nothing, then in six months the courts will likely issue marriage licenses to gay couples. It can't legislate the decision away as the opinion involved the rights of citizens under the Massachusetts Constitution. It can't amend the Constitution to change things, either, as under Massachusetts law it would take at least two years. They could ask the court for a stay of the decision pending the amendment process, but that wish is unlikely to actually be granted. The likely outcome of all this is not full-blown gay marriage but instead something resembling the civil union system that started in Vermont in 2000.
Some point to an earlier section which construes marriage as, ""the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others,"" to mean that the court meant nothing less than full gay marriage. However, if they meant to have nothing less than full marriage, they would have handed out marriage licenses on the spot. They sent it the Legislature for a reason: political gamesmanship. They've started the negotiations with a not-so-subtle threat of full gay marriage, which the Legislature doesn't want, and gave them six months to bargain down from there to meet the minimum demands of the decision.
Such complexity is lost on the national media and politicians-and it shows. President Bush released a statement saying, ""Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle."" He then said he'd work with Congress to find a solution, hinting that a proposed amendment to the Constitution that could potentially wipe out not only the possibility of gay marriage but also any civil union or domestic-partner benefit may be coming down soon.
The Human Rights Campaign, the country's foremost gay rights group, didn't help things either. Their Web site stated that the Legislature ""could not replace civil marriage equality with a civil union law ... for the state's civil marriage licensing law to comply with the Massachusetts constitution it must be open to same-sex couples,"" and cited vast sections of irrelevant dicta and discussion in the opinion rather than the actual holding on the rights and benefits of marriage.
If these misconceptions persist, then gay rights advocates could find themselves in the middle of a nationwide fight over a constitutional amendment that could set them back forever in a worst-case scenario. A momentary victory for gay rights in Massachusetts might end in a disastrous national injustice. Those who have dedicated themselves to achieving full civil rights for gays must be cautious in how they interpret this event or else end up playing into the hands of the right over the long run. Far from being a great national leap, this is in fact an incremental step that will ease the country into the full acceptance of equality. To say differently could in fact accomplish the opposite.
