Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay marriage because its highest court ruled in November 2003 that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated the state constitution, and clerks began issuing those licenses on May 17, 2004. The ruling came out of a lawsuit by seven couples who had been turned away from their town clerks’ offices, and it rested on equality guarantees written into the Massachusetts Constitution in 1780.
The Lawsuit That Forced the Question
On April 11, 2001, seven same-sex couples sued the Massachusetts Department of Public Health after local clerks refused to give them marriage licenses.1Justia. Goodridge v. Department of Public Health The fourteen plaintiffs came from five counties. Some had been together for decades: Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, two of the named plaintiffs, had shared their lives for thirty years.2FindLaw. Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
Their claim was simple. By refusing them licenses, the state was cutting them off from hundreds of legal protections and financial benefits that opposite-sex couples received the moment they said their vows. The case became known as Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.
The Goodridge Ruling
On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled four to three that excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage violated the state constitution.1Justia. Goodridge v. Department of Public Health The majority found the state had no rational justification for the exclusion. It redefined civil marriage as “the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others,” setting aside the older common-law language that assumed a husband and wife.
The court did not order clerks to start issuing licenses immediately. Instead, it stayed its judgment for 180 days to give the legislature time to respond. That window ran out on May 17, 2004.
The Constitutional Basis
The court’s reasoning sat on two provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, the oldest written constitution still in active use anywhere in the world.3General Court of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Constitution Article I declares that “all people are born free and equal” and possess “certain natural, essential and unalienable rights,” including the right to seek safety and happiness.4Mass.gov. Massachusetts Declaration of Rights – Article 1 Article VII provides that government exists “for the common good… and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men.”
Together, those provisions required the state to offer at least a rational reason for treating same-sex couples differently. The state offered three. It argued that marriage encouraged procreation, that it provided an optimal setting for raising children, and that limiting it conserved public resources.
The court rejected each one. Fertility had never been a condition for a marriage license. Same-sex couples were already raising children, and those children would benefit from the stability marriage provided. And no evidence suggested that recognizing same-sex marriages would cost the state anything. With no legitimate justification left standing, the exclusion amounted to creating an inferior class of citizens.
Why Civil Unions Were Not Enough
During the 180-day window, the Massachusetts Senate tried a compromise. Senators drafted a bill creating “civil unions” that would give same-sex couples the legal benefits of marriage without the word itself, and asked the Supreme Judicial Court whether that would satisfy Goodridge.
On February 4, 2004, the court said no. A separate label, the justices explained, would amount to a “separate but equal” framework that still treated same-sex couples as second-class citizens. Only the full legal status of marriage, including the name, would comply with the constitution. The compromise died, and when the stay expired, clerks would have to issue marriage licenses on equal terms.
May 17, 2004: The First Licenses
Same-sex couples began filling out marriage license applications just after midnight on May 17, 2004, when Cambridge City Hall opened its doors ahead of normal business hours.5NPR. 20 Years Ago Massachusetts Became the First State to Allow Same-Sex Marriage Clerks across the state had updated their paperwork, swapping “bride” and “groom” for gender-neutral terms so every applicant followed the same process.
Massachusetts imposes a three-day waiting period between filing a marriage intention and receiving the actual license.6Mass.gov. Getting Married in Massachusetts: Before the Wedding Couples who wanted to marry the same day could ask a probate, district, or municipal court to waive the delay. Many did, and weddings took place across the state that day.
The 1913 Law and Out-of-State Couples
The new right came with an immediate geographic restriction. Governor Mitt Romney invoked a 1913 state law that barred out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state. Because no other state recognized same-sex marriage in 2004, the law effectively limited licenses to Massachusetts residents. Romney said the state should not “export” its marriage policy to the rest of the country.
The 1913 law stayed on the books until 2008, when Governor Deval Patrick signed its repeal. After that, same-sex couples from any state could travel to Massachusetts to marry, though whether their home state would recognize the marriage was a separate question governed by that state’s own laws.
The Attempt to Reverse It
Opponents launched a drive to amend the Massachusetts Constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Backers gathered more than 130,000 voter signatures and brought the measure to a joint session of the legislature, where it needed support from at least a quarter of the body to advance to the ballot. In January 2007, lawmakers narrowly voted to move it forward.
The amendment then needed to clear a second consecutive legislative session. In June 2007, that vote failed decisively, 151 to 45, well short of the roughly 50 votes needed to keep it alive. The defeat ended the most serious threat to same-sex marriage in the state where it began.
From Massachusetts to the Rest of the Country
Marriage recognition in Massachusetts did not immediately carry over to the federal government. The Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996, defined marriage for all federal purposes as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.”7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 1 USC 7 A couple married in Massachusetts could file a joint state tax return but had to file federal returns as single individuals, and federal benefits ran through DOMA’s narrower definition.
That federal barrier fell on June 26, 2013, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of DOMA in United States v. Windsor, ruling that the federal government could not refuse to recognize marriages the states had made lawful.8Justia. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) Two years later, on June 26, 2015, the Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment requires every state to license and recognize marriages between two people of the same sex.9Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) What began with fourteen plaintiffs and a four-to-three ruling in Boston became the law in all fifty states.