SJC clarifies benefits for same-sex marriage
Court says rules do not extend to time before 2004 landmark decision
The state Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that marriage benefits for same-sex couples do not extend back to a time before the justices legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts.
The ruling, released yesterday, was part of a malpractice case brought by Michelle Charron and Cynthia Kalish of Worcester, who had lived as a couple for more than a decade before marrying in 2004, when same-sex marriage became legal.
Charron was diagnosed with breast cancer the year before they were married. Kalish, who sought compensation for the loss of marital companionship, argued the couple would have married earlier had it been legal. Charron died in 2006.
But the court ruled that allowing Kalish to sue doctors she considered responsible for the death of her spouse would spark other lawsuits. The justices also said that allowing Kalish to sue would weaken the legal rights of married couples.
"The circumstances of this case are moving, a vivid reminder of the constitutional mandate of equality under the law, and the costs imposed when society falls short of that mandate," Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall wrote in a concurring opinion. "But the relief the plaintiff seeks . . . would erase the bright line between civil marriage and other forms of relationship that has heretofore been carefully preserved by the Legislature and our prior decisions."
Marshall added: "Granting such relief would create in effect a common-law or de facto quasi marital status that would promote litigation, permit judges to select from among marital benefits to which quasi marital couples might or might not be entitled, create uncertainty in the private as well as the public sphere about who is (or was) quasi married and for what purpose, and undercut the Legislature's role in defining the qualifications and characteristics of civil marriage."
Reached at her home, Kalish said only: "I'm saddened by the ruling."
Kathy Jo Cook, a Boston lawyer who represented Charron, said she was disheartened. "We're sad the SJC refused to extend the basic protections of marriage to this same-sex family, but we're pleased that the court stands by its decision in Goodridge [v. Department of Public Health] - that it made clear that this is a tragic set of circumstances, and the reminder of equality under the law," she said.
In Goodridge v. Department of Public Health in 2003, the SJC issued a landmark ruling that said prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying was unconstitutional. It led the state to allow marriage licenses to be issued in May 2004.
Janson Wu, a staff lawyer at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which filed a brief in support of Charron, strongly disagreed with the justices.
"Obviously, we're sad for Cynthia Kalish and her daughter," Wu said. "Not only have they lost a spouse and mother to cancer, but now the SJC has ruled that they are not deserving of the same protections that other families get for exactly these types of tragic situations. I think this decision really demonstrates why marriage equality and the benefits and protections that come with marriage are so necessary for same-sex couples and their families."
Kalish and Charron met in 1986, started dating four years later, and in 1992, moved in together, according to the decision. They later bought a home together and in 1994 exchanged rings in a private ceremony.
Through an anonymous donor program, Kalish conceived a daughter, who was born in 1998, and was adopted by Charron.
They had a family health insurance policy, and in 1999, they filed legal documents naming each other as beneficiaries for their wills and life insurance policies.
In 2003, Charron was diagnosed with breast cancer. They applied for a marriage license on May 17, 2004, the day same-sex marriage became legal. They were married three days later.
A day after they were married, they filed a malpractice suit against Dr. Edward Amaral, Dr. Laura J. Bessette, and the Fallon Clinic in Worcester, arguing the doctors failed to perform a biopsy and delayed Charron's diagnosis.
Peter Kelley, a Cambridge lawyer who represented Amaral, a surgeon in Worcester, praised the justices' decision but said the case is not over.
Charron's estate is still seeking damages.
"The decision follows what the state of the law has been," Kelley said. "The law requires that they must have married prior to the incident that gives rise to the lawsuit." 