«=1*|
i > >• X ' 'A s
Untying the Kn
A look at the court
battles from Hawaii
to San Francisco
By Trevor Hoppe
When the JVIassachusetts Supreme Court issued
its notorious same-gender marriage ruUng this past
November, the justices knew that they were in for a
maelstrom of criticism. In his State of the Union
address in January, President Bush criticized the court
for opening the doors to so-called “gay marriage,”
calling the justices “activist judges” for enforcing their
“arbitrary will.” Scores of other political and
fundamentalist Religious leaders have begun
mobilizing their homophobic armies to use same-
gender marriage as a divisive issue in the approaching
2004 Presidential election.
The fact that a state court has taken this step comes
as no surprise to many LGBTIQ activists. Same-
gender couples have been knocking at the doors of
justice and demandiug marriage equality since the
often-cited Hawaii marriage ruling of 1993. In that
case, the court ruled that by not allowing same-gender
couples to marry, the state had violated the Hawaii
constitution’s provisions oudawing sex discrimination.
Unfortunately, the justices remanded the case back
to a lower court, giving lawmakers just enough time
to pass a law defining marriage as a union between a
man and a woman. The plaintiffs’ case was then ruled
to be moot.
While same-gender marriage never actually
materialized in Hawaii, the case instilled fear into the
heart of every card-carrying neoconservative in
America. Anti-LGBTIQ forces began a massive
“Defense of Marriage” campaign across the nation
in hopes of shutting down the “homosexual agenda”
in as many legislatures as possible before other state
courts had the chance to review similar cases. The
well-funded, well-organized extreme right succeeded
LAMBDA navigater
on the rc
Last March,
Marcie (left) and
Chantelle Fisher-
Borne were
married in every
sense of the word
except legally in a
commitment
ceremony that is
pictured on the
cover. Both fight
alongside the
Triangle Freedom
to Marry Coalition
for same-gender
marriage equality.
Cowr pt*
/M
in pushing through Defense of Marriage Acts in
ultimately 38 states, as well as the infamous Federal
Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. For the unaware.
President Clinton, who is sometimes referred to as
the mostLGBTIQ-friendly President, signed the bill
into law at midmght to avoid press coverage
The Federal DOAIA not only defined marriage
as a union between a man and a woman, but also
stated that same-gender marriages performed in one
state do not have to be recognized by other states.
This is blatantly contradictory to the Constitution’s
“full faith and credit” clause of Article I\^, which
states that “Full faith and credit shall be given in each
state to the public acts, records, and judicial
proceedings of every other state.” Though the
Federal DOA^IA is in clear violation of this
Constitutional provision, a same-gendered couple
must be married in one state and be refused
recognition of their union in another before the
legislation can be challenged in court.
After the Federal legislation was passed, the issue
of same-gender marriage cooled off for a few short
years. Though a struggle erupted in 1998 in *\laska
in which a lower state court rul
couples should be extended the
case fizzled when voters appro'
..\mendment defining marriage
a woman. The next big wave in tl
equality appeared across the cO
predecessors. Vermont’s struggle
same-gender couples the benefits
in the then-nouveau idea of civil
extend the benefits associated "
state level, but do not afford ^
numerous Federal benefits tbi
marriage Civil umons are also
so any out of state couple that
the Green ^fountain state would
their umon legally meaningless.
*\nd then Massachusetts hsl
Supreme Court’s 4-3 ruling in tb
Department of Public Health sent ^
mainstream ^America. The court'
refusal to issue marriage liceo*
couples was unconstitutional, ^
precedent the Federal Supreme