Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · 2003 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawPropertyMarriageEqual ProtectionDue Processsame-sex marriagecivil marriageMassachusetts Constitution

Facts

The plaintiffs were fourteen individuals in long-term same-sex relationships, several of whom were raising children or caring for dependent family members. Each couple applied for a marriage license in Massachusetts by submitting the required forms, health documents, and fees, but clerks refused or denied the licenses because Massachusetts did not recognize same-sex marriage. The department admitted a policy and practice of denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Because a marriage license is a prerequisite to civil marriage in Massachusetts, the denials excluded the plaintiffs from the legal protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage.

Issue

Whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. Also, whether the marriage licensing statute could be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry without reaching the constitutional question.

Rule

Under the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth's exercise of regulatory authority in matters of marriage must at minimum be rational and not arbitrary or capricious. A law challenged on liberty or equality grounds must bear a reasonable relation to a permissible legislative objective and serve a legitimate purpose in a rational way; if an absolute exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage lacks any reasonable relationship to public health, safety, or general welfare, it is unconstitutional.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Massachusetts Legislature enacts a statute limiting civil marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples. In defending the law, the Commonwealth argues that civil marriage exists to channel biological procreation, but Massachusetts continues to allow marriage by elderly couples, infertile couples, and couples who expressly state they do not want children.

Under the majority's reasoning, is the exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage likely constitutional?

Explanation. The majority held that the exclusion failed rational basis review. Massachusetts civil marriage is not conditioned on procreative capacity, coital reproduction, or an intent to conceive. The opinion emphasized that people who cannot or will not have children may still marry, so making procreation the asserted purpose of marriage does not rationally justify an absolute bar on same-sex couples.