BOSTON (AP) — In the nation’s most far-reaching
decision of its kind, Massachusetts’ highest court declared
yesterday that the state constitution guarantees gay couples the
right to marry — a ruling celebrated with a popping of
champagne corks and the planning of spring weddings.

“Without a doubt, this is the happiest day of our
lives,” said Gloria Bailey, who with her partner of 32 years
was among the seven gay couples who had sued the state in 2001 for
refusing to issue them marriage licenses.

In its 4-3 decision, the Supreme Judicial Court gave the
Legislature six months to rewrite the state’s marriage laws
for the benefit of gay couples.

Although courts in other states have issued similar rulings,
some legal experts said this one goes further in its emphatic
language and appears to suggest that gay couples should be offered
nothing less than marriage itself — and not a lesser
alternative such as civil unions, which are available in
Vermont.

The ruling was another milestone in a year that has seen a
significant expansion of gay rights around the world, including a
U.S. Supreme Court decision in June striking a Texas ban on gay
sex. Canadian courts also legalized gay marriage over the
summer.

“We declare that barring an individual from the
protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely
because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates
the Massachusetts Constitution,” Chief Justice Margaret
Marshall wrote.

The dissenting justices argued that the court was treading on
lawmakers’ territory. “Today, the court has transformed
its role as protector of rights into the role of creator of rights,
and I respectfully dissent,” Justice Francis Spina wrote.

The decision prompted complex legal questions about the next
step and about when the nation’s first gay marriage licenses
will be issued, if ever.

Republican Gov. Mitt Romney denounced the ruling but said there
is little the state could do beyond pursuing a constitutional
amendment.

“I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. I disagree
with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,” he said.
“Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman
… and our constitution and laws should reflect
that.”

But the soonest a constitutional amendment could be put on the
ballot is 2006, potentially opening a window of a few years in
which gay marriage licenses could be granted.

Vermont’s high court issued a similar decision in 1999 but
told the Legislature that it could allow gay couples to marry or
create a similar institution that confers all the rights and
benefits of marriage. Lawmakers chose the second route, leading to
the approval of civil unions in that state.

The Massachusetts decision makes no mention of such an
alternative, and instead points to a recent decision in Canada that
changed the common-law definition of marriage to include same-sex
couples and led to marriage licenses being issued there.

The state “has failed to identify any constitutionally
adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex
couples,” the court wrote, adding that denying gays the right
to marry deprives them “of membership in one of our
community’s most rewarding and cherished
institutions.”

Still, legal experts pointed out that the wording leaves it
unclear whether the court would accept an alternative to
marriage.

“It’s poorly drafted in that they are going to
create all of this controversy about what they meant,” said
Paul Martinek, editor of Lawyers Weekly USA.

The Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights organization,
said that the Massachusetts decision goes beyond Vermont by saying
that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from the institution
of marriage, and not just the accompanying benefits — such as
hospital visitation and inheritance rights.

The federal government and 37 states have adopted laws defining
marriage as a union between a man and a woman — assuring
legal battles over whether gay marriages performed here will be
recognized outside the state.

In the 1990s, Hawaii’s Supreme Court ruled that a ban on
gay marriage might be unconstitutional, but state lawmakers amended
the constitution before same-sex weddings were allowed. Similarly,
a trial court in Alaska ruled in favor of same-sex marriages, but
the Legislature amended the constitution to ban them.

Without any pressure from a court, California’s
Legislature passed a law signed by Gov. Gray Davis this summer that
avoided using the term “marriage” but granted gay
couples who register as domestic partners most of the rights and
responsibilities of spouses.