Goodridge v. Department of Health case brief PDF

Preview

Summary

CASE BRIEF ...

Description

Carliana Zoquier Family Law Professor Jane Leary Lavesque Goodridge v. Department of Health 1. Name and citation: Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (Mass. 2003) 2. Court: The Supreme Judicial Court 3. Judicial History: The Superior Court granted summary judgment to defendant and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint. The court held that the Massachusetts Constitution does not guarantee a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. It further concluded that Massachusetts’ policy of only allowing opposite-sex couples to marry furthers the primary purpose of marriage — procreation. Both parties requested direct appellate review to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Direct appellate review was granted. 4. Facts: Plaintiffs in this case are seven same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in Massachusetts. The defendant, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, is charged with, among other things, overseeing the issuance of marriage licenses. Plaintiffs sued in state Superior Court. They alleged that refusing to allow same-sex couples to marry violates Massachusetts law. Both parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. 5. Issue: Whether Massachusetts can prevent homosexual couples from getting married? Is the denial of marriage to same-sex couples a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution? 6. Holding: Barring a person from the benefits and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person wishes to marry someone of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. 7. Reasoning: Yes, it is a violation these. The current marriage license laws cannot be read to include same-sex couples. It is unfair to exclude people from the many benefits of marriage. Marriage laws have evolved over the course of history. Same-sex marriage strengthens, rather than undermines, the institution of marriage. 8. Decision:

Summary judgment for defendant is vacated, and the case is remanded for a judgment consistent with the Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion. 9. Concurring opinion: (Greaney): The denial of marriage licenses for same-sex couples is gender discrimination. Under the current law, a person’s choice of spouse is limited by the person’s gender. 10. Dissenting opinion: (Spina, J.) The Massachusetts law does not violate equal protection because it does not discriminate on the matter of sex or sexual orientation. Men and women equally have a right to marry under Massachusetts law despite their sexual orientation, and the state should not create a new rights as it pertains to same-sex marriage. (Sosman, J.) The court manipulated the rational basis standard to allow same-sex marriage although it is not constitutionally supported. (Cordy, J.) The court could have concluded that the best household environment for children with same-sex parents. Similarly, the issue challenged in the statute was the ability for same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses....