On November 18, 2003 The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held in Goodrich v. Department of Public Health that same-sex couples cannot be excluded from the benefits and obligations that marriage provides for heterosexual couples. The ruling extends many of the same rights that married couples in the Commonwealth enjoy to same-sex couples. However, the ruling does have its limits.
 
The ultimate fate of same-sex marriage remains unclear. Political pressure is mounting on both sides of the issue.  Mere recognition in Massachusetts does not mean that the ruling will survive state pressure from the Legislature or the Governor’s Office nor does it mean that same sex marital rights are necessarily protected under federal law.
 
The Decision
 
The plaintiffs in Goodrich challenged the Massachusetts Department of Public Health Policy of denying issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The policy was based on an interpretation of Massachusetts General Law c. 207 (the Massachusetts statute governing marriage). Although the statute does not explicitly define marriage, common law in Massachusetts requires that the ordinary definition of marriage be used. In this case, the court relied on the ordinary definition of marriage: “the legal union of man and woman as husband and wife.” The court acknowledged the Department’s exclusionary policy was based on a valid interpretation of the statute as written.
 
The question for the Supreme Judicial Court, then, was whether the categorical exclusion of same-sex marriages resulting from this interpretation of the statute violated the due process and/or equal protection clauses of the Massachusetts Constitution. More specifically, when determining whether there has been a violation, Massachusetts requires that a statute bear “a real and substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or some other phase of the general welfare” or that the exclusion of a class of people “would serve a legitimate public purpose that transcends the harm to the members of the disadvantaged class.” In short, the court must find that there is a good purpose served by excluding same-sex marriages and the practice of doing so must rationally relate to the accomplishment of that purpose.
 
The Department of Health argued that the promotion of stable environments for raising children and for procreation is the good achieved by providing benefits to only opposite sex marriages. Alternatively, the Department argued the policy does not truly discriminate because it allows all individuals equal access to marriage, as long as the marriage is to a person of the opposite sex.
 
The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed with the Department’s reasoning. It claimed that the history of marriage laws in the Commonwealth demonstrates that “it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children that is the sine qua non [i.e. the essence] of marriage.” Hence, the court reasoned that the good achieved by the institution of marriage does not derive primarily from the incidence of procreation, but rather, from the stability a society attains from promoting the mutual commitments upon which a marriage is founded. Therefore, excluding those who can not procreate directly through the institution serves no good purpose. The court further remarked that its decision “does not disturb the fundamental value of marriage in our society. That same sex couples are willing to embrace marriage’s solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support, and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit.”
 
The Implications of the Ruling
 
The Goodridge decision has far reaching implications in the areas of family, estate, and employment law. Although it will take time to determine with any accuracy how the various state and local administrative agencies will interpret and effectuate the new ruling, there are many areas in which the ruling will certainly amend and modify current approaches. The following are some of the ways in which estate planning may be affected: 

• Same-sex married couples will now be afforded the same inheritance rights afforded to heterosexual couples. The Goodrich ruling will likely offer greater protection should a same-sex partner die intestate (i.e. without a will) or where another heir or beneficiary under a will tries to contest a will.
• The ability to nominate a same-sex spouse to be the legal guardian of a child born of one partner, but not the other, may be given greater protection than that which is presently available.
• Same-sex couples will also have the right to elect against a will. Therefore, if a surviving same-sex spouse is not satisfied with the terms of the will, that spouse may elect the share of the decedent same-sex spouse that would have been available under Massachusetts law had the decedent spouse died without a will.
• Same-sex spouses will have the right to file joint state tax returns and list a spouse as a dependant on those returns.
• The redefinition of marriage may affect how the term “spouse” is defined as a class in irrevocable trust documents drafted in the past.
• There will be issues relating to how Massachusetts law interacts with federal law and the laws of other states.  For example, same-sex couples will not have the right to file joint federal tax returns or take advantage of the unlimited marital deduction on the federal estate tax return. Federal law will continue to preclude same sex partners from transferring appreciated property to a spouse without burdensome tax consequences. In other states, there is also no guarantee that a same-sex marriage will be afforded the same status as in Massachusetts. Additional Federal and Massachusetts estate planning may now be implemented to reduce or defer estate taxes.