In a landmark decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that civil unions for homosexuals alone are not constitutional, instead declaring that full marriage rights were necessary to uphold the constitution.
\The very nature and purpose of civil marriage, the court concluded, renders unconstitutional any attempt to ban all same-sex couples, as same-sex couples, from entering into civil marriage ... but neither may the government, under the guise of protecting 'traditional' values, even if they be the traditional values of the majority, enshrine in law an invidious discrimination that our Constitution, 'as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach, 'forbids,'"" the decision read.
Charles Franklin, political science professor at UW-Madison, explained the Supreme Court may have ruled as it did because civil unions did not ensure equal protection under the law.
""Civil unions did not fully address the equal protection issues of whether gays are being discriminated against unconstitutionally by not being allowed to marry ... the court ruled that actual marriage needed to be recognized in order to provide equal protection,"" he said.
Heterosexual marriages receive many benefits, including saving money by being allowed to file jointly on their tax returns, and receiving health and employment benefits. However, since homosexuals are currently not allowed to marry, they may not receive all the assistance married couples do, according to UW-Madison political science and women's studies Professor Virginia Sapiro.
The Massachusetts decision could potentially yield extremely positive opportunities for homosexuals wishing to marry, Franklin said. The court decision will be legal and indisputable for the foreseeable future. However, the Massachusetts State Legislature will be able to overturn the ruling in 2006.
While the ruling sets the stage for same-sex marriage, it poses legal questions as to recognition of the marriage. The American Constitution declares one state must recognize binding contracts of other states, so those states that have legally defined marriage as between a man and a woman would have to acknowledge the marriage of two men or two women, Franklin said.
Former Vermont governor and current presidential candidate Howard Dean presided over Vermont when civil unions were legalized, Franklin said. Hawaii came very close to allowing marriage, and Canada recently decided to allow same-sex marriages.
Although some states are becoming more tolerant of homosexual marriage, the vast majority of states have virtually banned same-sex marriages by defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, according to Franklin.
Gov. Jim Doyle recently vetoed a bill that would have followed the lead of many states and prohibited homosexuals from marrying. Had the bill passed, Wisconsin would have raised the number of states not allowing homosexual marriage to almost 40.
