Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (SJC-08860), a case heard in the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of the State of Massachusetts, asked the court to rule on the constitutionality (in the State of Massachusetts) of same-sex marriage. In its decision, the SJC held that barring an individual from the protection, benefits and obligations of civil marriage simply because that person would marry a person of the same sex was a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution (The Massachusetts Court System, 2003). The court stayed the entry of judgment for 180 days to permit the Massachusetts legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of the courtÆs opinion.
Subsequently, various states and local jurisdictions (e.g., New York, New Jersey, San Francisco) have adopted or attempted to adopt legislation permitting same sex marriage (Gourvitz & Gourvitz, 2002). At issue herein is the possibility of a constitutional amendment affecting the entire United States which would legalize same-sex marriage û a move supported by this writer. A constitutional amendment would redefine marriage, extend the protections and benefits (as well as the duties and obligations) of marriage to disenfranchised citizens, and eliminate the disadvantages under which same-sex partners now labor. Stakeholders include primarily all same-sex partners and potential partners as well as other individuals who continue to regard marriage as legitimate only between a man and a woman.
A constitutional amendment to permit same-sex marriage has several clear and distinct goals. First, marital status will give same-sex partners the same rights as married heterosexuals. These rights include: tax obligations and benefits, rights of inheritance, social security and health insurance or pension benefits, custody of nonbiological children, hospital visitation and termination of life support, and court appointment of guardianship for a partner who is ...