Margaret H. Marshall
Age: 59
Appointment:
1996, Weld
Appointment
to chief justice:
1999, Cellucci
The second woman to serve on
the Supreme Judicial Court, and the
first to lead the oldest court in
the Western Hemisphere.
The South Africa native gained
attention as a student leader of
protests against apartheid.
She is seen as a liberal influence
on the court and has written many
notable decisions on family law.
Judith A.
Cowin
Age: 61
Appointment:
1999, Cellucci
As a former Norfolk County
prosecutor, she was known for her
passion for juicy cases — and for
winning nearly every case she tried.
She has been seen as one of the
court's more conservative voices,
and is not afraid to write a strong
dissent. In one recent dissent, she
accused the majority justices of
ignoring the intent of a law to reach
the result they wanted.
John M.
Greaney
Age: 64
Appointment:
1989, Dukakis
The only appointee of a Democrat
governor, Greaney has been on the
Supreme Court bench longer than any
other justice. He and Spina are the
court's two representatives of Western
Massachusetts.
In 2009, Greaney will be the first of
the court's current justices to reach
the mandatory retirement age of 70.
Roderick
L. Ireland
Age: 58
Appointment:
1997, Weld
The first African-American
appointed to the court in its then 305-year history. A long-time juvenile court
judge, he is seen as a strong advocate
for children's rights.
Ireland, who began his career with the
Roxbury Defenders Committee, served for seven years
on the Appeals Court.
Robert
J. Cordy
Age: 54
Appointment:
2001, Cellucci
He is the SJC's newest member,
joining the court in early 2001.
Cordy was chief legal counsel to
Gov. William F. Weld, but he had
no prior judicial experience before
his appointment to the Supreme
Judicial Court.
Cordy has written many of the
court's criminal decisions.
Martha
B. Sosman
Age: 53
Appointment:
2000, Cellucci
A former prosecutor in the US
Attorney's office, she is one of the
court's most vocal questioners.
She agreed with Gov. Paul Cellucci's
assessment of her as a conservative
justice when he appointed her in 2000.
She wrote a sharply worded dissent
to the SJC's majority decision last year
to uphold the state's grandparent
visitation law.
Francis
X. Spina
Age: 57
Appointment:
1999, Cellucci
The former Berkshire prosecutor
also worked in private practice
and as a judge in Superior Court
and the Appeals Court.
|
|
 | | |
After the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November 2003 that same-sex couples have the right to marry under the state Constitution, the state Senate asked the high court for an opinion on a proposed law that would ban marriage for same-sex couples, but create civil unions instead. On Feb. 3, 2004, a four-justice majority of the court ruled that such a law would be unconstitutional. Three justices dissented.
(By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff, 2/5/04)
The Supreme Judicial Court on Feb. 5 put Massachusetts on course to become the first state in the nation to allow gays to marry, deciding that a proposed civil unions bill for gay couples would establish "an unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."
In Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled Nov. 18, 2003 that same-sex couples have the legal right to marry under the state Constitution. Four justices made up the majority; three dissented.
(By Kathleen Burge, Globe Staff, 11/19/03)
In a historic and long-awaited decision, a deeply split Supreme Judicial Court on Nov. 18 ushered in a new era of gay rights, becoming the nation's first state supreme court to rule that same-sex couples have the legal right to marry.
Government response
Public reaction
Legal consequences
|
|
Plaintiffs' argument
The seven couples, represented by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, were denied marriage licenses at their local city and town halls when they applied for them. They sought a declaration from the court that they were entitled to marriage licenses under Massachusetts law.
|
| | |
Defendant's argument
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health, charged with enforcing the state's marriage laws, was the defendant in the case. Lawyers for the state argued that the state's marriage laws weren't intended to apply to gay couples. The ban on same-sex marriage, they said, did violate the constitutional rights of gay couples.
|
| | |
Court's decision
Barring gay couples from civil marriage violates the Massachusetts constitution, according to a Nov. 18, 2003 ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court. The court gave the state legislature 180 days to comply with the decision.
|
|
|
|
Web links
Web sites related to the gay marriage issue.
|
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: Legislators' vote due on same-sex measure (By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff, 2/5/04)
