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.

Sponsor Message.

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.

The 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 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.

However, on June 14, 2007, when the constitutional convention reconvened, the amendment was swiftly voted down on a vote of 45 to 151, handing a great victory to the gay and lesbian community. The success was due to strong support from the new Democratic leadership, including Governor Deval Patrick. The rejection of the amendment means that a referendum on same-sex marriage in Massachusetts could not be held before 2012.

Setbacks in New York, Washington, and Maryland

In a long-anticipated ruling on several New York cases, in July 2006 the state's highest court dealt a surprising blow to the momentum that was building for same-sex marriage in the country's second-largest state. In a 4-2 ruling, the Court of Appeal rejected the claim that the state constitution compelled same-sex marriage.

The ruling was especially disappointing because the majority seemed to have no interest at all in questions of justice or equity. It seemed to accept the dubious proposition that the purpose of marriage is procreation and implied that protecting the children of opposite-sex marriages was more important than protecting the children of same-sex marriages. The majority opinion makes a mockery of the notion of equal protection.