Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action - www.jewishalliance.org
18 Tremont Street, Suite 320, Boston, 02108 - tel: 617-227-3000  fax: 662-796-6625

    23 Cheshvan 5764       November 18, 2003

Notice of Rally

Tonight, Tuesday, November 18, 6 pm, Old South Church
Rally to celebrate decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

This morning, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its
opinion in the Goodridge v. Dept of Public Health case. In
essence, the court decided that it is unconstitutional in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts to deny civil marriage rights to
two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.

The first two paragraphs of the decision:
[Chief Justice Margaret Marshall:]
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. 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. The question before us
is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the
Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations
conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex
who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts
Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals.
It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our
conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by
the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any
constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to
same-sex couples.

We are mindful that our decision marks a change in the history
of our marriage law. Many people hold deep-seated religious,
moral, and ethical convictions that marriage should be limited to
the union of one man and one woman, and that homosexual conduct
is immoral. Many hold equally strong religious, moral, and
ethical convictions that same-sex couples are entitled to be
married, and that homosexual persons should be treated no
differently than their heterosexual neighbors. Neither view
answers the question before us. Our concern is with the
Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every
person properly within its reach. "Our obligation is to define
the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." Lawrence
v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 2480 (2003) (Lawrence ), quoting
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833,
850 (1992).

JALSA has released the following statement:   November 18, 2003

JEWISH ALLIANCE FOR LAW AND SOCIAL ACTION
WELCOMES SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DECISION
AFFIRMING EQUAL RIGHT TO CIVIL MARRIAGE
UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTION

The Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action welcomed today’s decision
by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declaring 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.

“Today’s ruling is a victory for civil rights and human decency in Massachusetts,”
said David A. Guberman, JALSA’s President. “As both the majority and the minority on the
Court agree, civil marriage is a secular institution created by the State. The decision will enable
same sex couples in committed, exclusive unions and their children to share in the many and
vital legal protections, responsibilities, and benefits that, through civil marriage, the State makes
available. Moreover, because civil marriage is a secular, State-created institution, the decision
does not affect the right of religious bodies to refuse to perform or grant religious recognition
to marriages of which they disapprove. That said, in public and within the civil sphere, we share
Justice Greaney’s eloquent belief that ‘[s]imple principles of decency dictate that we extend to the
plaintiffs [and to those who will follow them], and to their new status, full acceptance, tolerance,
and respect. We should do so because it is the right thing to do.’”

Boston.com (the online edition of the Boston Globe, is running a poll
asking whether people agree or disagree with the SJC opinion.
If you are interested in participating, go to www.boston.com.

Since the SJC has given the legislature 180 days to act on the Court's opinion,
and there is intense opposition from social conservatives, including the Governor and the
Speaker of the House, JALSA anticipates a highly charged intense political battle.

JALSA invites members who wish to work on the political debate that will follow
to contact the office. decter@jalsa.org.