Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that same-sex couples are legally entitled to wed under the state constitution, but stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law.

The Supreme Judicial Court's 4-3 ruling ordered the legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days. The ruling closely matches the 1999 Vermont Supreme Court decision, which led to its legislature's approval in 2000 of civil unions that give couples many of the same benefits of marriage.

''Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support. It brings stability to our society,'' Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote in the long-awaited ruling. ''For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial and social benefits. In return, it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations.''

While a victory for gay rights advocates, the decision fell short of what the seven couples who sued the state had hoped to receive: the right to marry their longtime companion.

The Massachusetts question will now return to the Legislature, which already is considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The state's powerful Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran of Boston, has endorsed this proposal. A similar initiative, launched by citizens, was defeated by the Legislature last year on a procedural vote.

Gay and lesbian advocates had been cheered by a series of advances this year, including a U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down anti-sodomy laws, the ordination of an openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, and a Canadian appeals court ruling that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples. Belgium and the Netherlands also have legalized gay marriage.

General Atmosphere in United States

In addition to Vermont, courts in Hawaii and Alaska have previously ruled that the states did not have a right to deny marriage to gay couples. In those two states, the decisions were followed by the adoption of constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. No American court has ordered the issuance of a marriage license - a privilege reserved for heterosexual couples.

The U.S. House is currently considering a constitutional ban on gay marriage. President Bush, although he believes marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman, recently said that a constitutional amendment is not yet necessary.

Gov. Mitt Romney has repeatedly said that marriage should be preserved as a union between a man and a woman, but has declined to comment on what he would do if gay marriages are legalized. On the campaign trail last fall, Romney said he would veto gay-marriage legislation. He supports giving domestic benefits such as inheritance and hospital visitation rights to gay couples


States determine marriage laws

In the United States, marriage laws are determined by states, and a number of states have passed laws forbidding gays from marrying, often also barring the recognition of a same-sex marriage performed in another state. The federal government's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), while not an outright ban on gay marriage, declares that states are not required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

DOMA, passed by Congress in 1996, also effectively bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions by defining marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and spouse as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

In the United States, Vermont is the only state to allow same-sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage. Vermont calls them civil unions, rather than marriages. California's State Assembly has passed a domestic partnership law to provide similar benefits, but it stops short of allowing gays to marry.

FUENTE: CNN, AP AND AOL

Portada<<