BOSTON (AP) – Massachusetts’ highest court became the first in the country to rule that its state constitution guarantees gays and lesbians the right to marry, and gave the Legislature six months to change state laws to make it happen.

Although courts in other states have issued similar rulings, the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts went further – by definitively ruling a ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

“We declare 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,” Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote.

The 4-3 decision prompted proposals and cheers of victory from gay couples but complex legal questions remained about the next step and whether the nation’s first gay marriage licenses will be issued next year.

President Bush immediately denounced the decision and vowed to pursue legislation to protect the traditional definition of marriage.

“Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman,” Bush said in London. “Today’s decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.”

Local opponents vowed to fight for a state constitutional amendment, but the soonest that could be placed on the ballot is 2006.

What the case represents, both sides agree, is a significant new milestone in a year that has seen broad new recognitions of gay rights in America, Canada and abroad, including a June U.S. Supreme Court decision striking a Texas ban on gay sex.

“Without a doubt, this is the happiest day of our lives,” said Gloria Bailey, who with her partner of 32 years was among the seven gay couples that sued the state after they were denied a marriage license. “The most important thing for us is knowing whatever comes ahead, for the rest of our lives, we now know we can be at each others’ side.”

Legal experts, however, said that the long-awaited decision, while clearly stating that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage, gives ambiguous instructions to the state Legislature.

And the justices who dissented argued that the court was treading into territory that should be reserved for lawmakers: “Today, the court has transformed its role as protector of rights into the role of creator of rights, and I respectfully dissent,” Justice Francis Spina wrote.

When a similar decision was issued in Vermont in 1999, the court told the Legislature that it could allow gay couples to marry or create a parallel institution that conveys all the rights and benefits of marriage. The Legislature chose the second route, leading to the approval of civil unions in that state.

The Massachusetts decision makes no mention of an alternative solution, but instead points to a recent decision in Ontario, Canada, that changed the common law definition of marriage to include same-sex couples and led to the issuance of marriage licenses there.

The state “has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples,” the court wrote. “Barred access to the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community’s most rewarding and cherished institutions.”

Still, legal experts point out, the wording leaves it unclear whether the court would accept an alternative to marriage.

“It’s poorly drafted in that they are going to create all of this controversy about what they meant,” said Paul Martinek, editor of Lawyers Weekly USA. “It is ambiguous here as to whether or not the SJC would say that civil union is enough.”

The Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights organization, said that the Massachusetts decision goes beyond Vermont by saying that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from the institution of marriage, and not just the accompanying benefits – such as hospital visitation and inheritance rights.

Republican Gov. Mitt Romney denounced the decision, but said there was little the state could do beyond pursuing a constitutional amendment.

“Marriage is a special institution between a man and a woman and our constitution and laws should reflect that,” Romney said. “We obviously have to follow the law as provided by the Supreme Judicial Court, even if we don’t agree with it. We’ll have legislation which conforms with the law.”

Senate President Robert Travaglini, D-Boston, also interpreted the decision to mean that gay marriage will soon be a reality in Massachusetts.

“We’re not sure that any action that we take is going to affect the decision of the court,” said Travaglini, who opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions. “We’re trying to analyze and digest what options and what responsibilities are now the Legislature’s. But the court’s decision is now very clear.”

House Speaker Thomas Finneran, D-Boston, an opponent of gay marriage opponent, said he would reserve comment on the decision until after he has carefully reviewed it. Perhaps the most powerful politician in the state, Finneran’s response could set the parameters for the future of the debate in Massachusetts.

A key group of state lawmakers also has recently been working behind the scenes to craft civil union legislation similar to the law passed in Vermont.

The Massachusetts case began in 2001, when seven gay couples went to their city and town halls to obtain marriage licenses. All were denied, leading them to sue the state Department of Public Health, which administers the state’s marriage laws.

A Suffolk Superior Court judge threw out the case in 2002, ruling that nothing in state law gives gay couples the right to marry. The couples immediately appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, which heard arguments in March.

The plaintiffs argued that barring them from marrying a partner of the same sex denied them access to an intrinsic human experience and violated basic constitutional rights.

Over the past decade, Massachusetts’ high court has expanded the legal parameters of family, ruling that same-sex couples can adopt children and devising child visitation right for a former partner of a lesbian.

Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country with at 1.3 percent of the total number of coupled households, according to the 2000 census. In California, 1.4 percent of the coupled households are occupied by same-sex partners. Vermont and New York also registered at 1.3 percent, while in Washington, D.C., the rate is 5.1 percent

The U.S. House is currently considering a constitutional ban on gay marriage, which President Bush has said he would support.

Canadian courts in Ontario and British Columbia recently legalized gay marriage, leading to hundreds of same-sex ceremonies. Belgium and the Netherlands also have legalized gay marriage.

In the 1990s, Hawaii’s supreme court ruled that a ban on gay marriage might be unconstitutional, but state lawmakers amended the constitution before same-sex weddings were allowed. A trial court in Alaska ruled in favor of same-sex marriages, but the Legislature later amended the constitution to ban them.

A poll released Tuesday found that opposition to gay marriage has grown since midsummer, with 32 percent favoring it and 59 percent opposing it. In July, 53 percent said they opposed gay marriage.

—

On the Net:

Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court: http://www.massreports.com/slipops/

AP-ES-11-18-03 1731EST