Unlike Baker, which was unanimous, the plaintiffs prevailed in Goodridge by a slim 4-3 majority. Justice Sosman in dissent argued "[the Legislature can rationally view the state of the scientific study as unsettled on the critical question it now faces: are families headed by same-sex parents equally successful in rearing children from infancy to adulthood as families headed by parents of opposite sexes?" Justice Cordy added, "the Legislature could conclude that redefining the institution of marriage to permit same-sex couples to marry would impair the State's interest in promoting and supporting heterosexual marriage as the social institution that it has determined best normalizes, stabilizes, and links the acts of procreation and child rearing."

Sponsor Message.

The court gave the legislature 180 days "to take such action as it may deem appropriate" but offered no further guidance. The decision was imbued with a tone suggesting that only marriage will constitutionally suffice, but many legislators saw in the vagueness of the court's ruling the possibility that civil union might pass constitutional muster. However, on February 3, 2004, in response to the legislature's request for an advisory opinion, the court ruled that only marriage, and not civil union, would satisfy Goodridge. The four-judge majority remarked that "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal." (For briefs making the argument in favor of marriage, see www.glad.org).

The legislature convened on February 11, 2004 to consider several constitutional amendments to override Goodridge. The votes were close, but none of the amendments passed. In two days of lengthy and dramatic testimony, dozens and dozens of legislators spoke eloquently and passionately in favor of same-sex marriage.

On March 11, 2004, the legislature reconvened. After spirited debate and in a spirit of compromise, it approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage but institute civil unions.

Notwithstanding the legislature's approval of the proposed constitutional amendment, however, it had no authority to prevent the court-ordered issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. On May 17, 2004, for the first time in American history, gay and lesbian couples obtained fully legal marriage licenses. In towns across Massachusetts, in city halls and in temples and churches, overjoyed gay men and lesbians, often accompanied by their children and family and friends, entered into legal matrimony.

Republican Governor Mitt Romney invoked a 1913 law to prohibit out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts. That law, originally intended to bar out-of-state interracial couples from marrying in Massachusetts, was challenged, but in 2006 it was upheld by the Supreme Judicial Court, at least when applied to couples from states that outlaw same-sex marriage. Under that ruling, couples from Rhode Island were permitted to be married in Massachusetts.

According to the Massachusetts Constitution, amendments to the constitution must be ratified by two consecutive legislatures before they can be put to a vote in the ensuing general election. The proposed amendment banning same-sex marriage and instituting civil union was, thus, taken up again by the legislature in September 2005. This time, the amendment failed by a lopsided vote of 157 against and only 39 in favor.

Many moderate lawmakers who voted in favor of the proposed amendment the first time said that the reality of same-sex marriage in the state had changed their minds. One lawmaker, representing this sentiment, said that between the votes, "we saw . . . how important marriage really is. We saw couples who had been together longer than some of us had been alive finally be able to receive the same benefits that other couples had always received and taken for granted."

Opponents of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts quickly initiated a new drive to amend the constitution under a different amendment procedure. Backers of a proposed amendment that would ban same-sex marriage (without adding a civil union substitute) gathered more than the 66,000 signatures needed to reopen the question. Under this procedure, the proposed amendment needed the support of only 50 lawmakers in two successive sessions in order for it to appear on the ballot in 2008. Some conservative lawmakers who had voted for the compromise civil union amendment the first time voted against it in the second session because they favored the new, more restictive amendment. Governor Mitt Romney, who supported the initial compromise amendment, switched his support to the new amendment.

After various legislative maneuvers, the amendment received 62 votes in January 2007, thus making it eligible for a state-wide referendum if it received more than 50 votes in the next legislative session.