On Nov. 18, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the highest court in the state, ruled that it is unconstitutional to deny same sex couples the right to marry, a move that could possibly make Massachusetts the first to legalize gay marriages.
Jennifer Levi, co-counsel in Goodridge v. Department of Public Heath, the case that invoked this landmark decision, and a staff attorney at Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), spoke at the University of Massachusetts last night about the case itself, the evolving transgender movement and the definition of marriage.
“What is traditional marriage? Is it marriage that denies interracial couples the right to marry? Is it marriage that takes away the rights of woman?” asked Levi.
The Goodridge case was first filed by GLAD in Suffolk Superior Court in April of 2001, as seven same-sex couples sought to remove the discriminatory barriers to marriage that the state had imposed for same-sex couples. They were ruled against in May of 2002, reason being that Massachusetts had an interest in connecting marriage to heterosexual procreation. The Supreme Judicial Court heard the case in March of 2003, and it was ruled on less than a month ago.
Levi began by framing her discussion on the Goodridge case around the transgender movement and transgender civil rights, explaining that the background behind these two issues is important because people need to question why someone’s sex should ever matter in conjunction with marriage.
“The question of why sex should be relevant in a legal matter is most often answered by homophobia, society’s interest in ensuring that gay and lesbian people can’t marry, or society’s interest in ensuring that men and women get different roles,” she said.
Levi also explained the reasons behind “why marriage matters.” According to her, it is a safety net that provides protections under the law for couples that they cannot otherwise receive. She discussed how civil unions, although a step in the right direction, are not equal to marriage, hence the need to bring about the Goodrigde case. Marriage provides legal protection at the federal level, while civil unions are only able to go as far as the state level.
Levi also discussed the transgender movement in relation to, and separate from, the gay and lesbian civil right movement. She talked about how the first sex discrimination law suits brought about by transgender people in the 1970s were ruled against on the basis that the court believed these people had not been discriminated against because of their sex, but rather because of their change of sex.
“I ask you to imagine if someone in a workplace was Presbyterian and then underwent faith transformation and became a Catholic, and they were fired because of that transformation,” she said. “It’s hard to imagine justifying that.”
Although the Goodridge decision does set a milestone for civil rights cases in the United States, Levi pointed out that the effect of the decision has been stayed for 180 days in order to give the legislature the opportunity to respond. But Levi is optimistic.
“Even though this becomes a political hot potato, there is established widespread support for the outcome of this case,” said Levi. “I think it will be at best a bumpy road ahead, but I’m hoping that in 181 days we’ll see something positive.”
Levi is a staff attorney at GLAD, New England’s leading legal organization for ensuring equal justice under the law for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender people, and people living with HIV/AIDS. She is a graduate of Wellesley College and the University of Chicago Law School. Levi’s speech was hosted by Legal Studies class 497C, Civil Rights Laws in the United States.
