Talk:Goodridge v. Department of Public Health

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 18, 2013 and November 18, 2023.

Lack of Sources

For a court case, I'm surprised that the only sources filed are newspapers and other similar media. At this moment, four out of the five sources are used in the last section, which is only two sentences long. Just how accurate is this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.39.181.13 (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce section to be removed

I am removing the following: "Divorce of Julie and Hillary Goodridge

One of the original couples in the case, the couple that the case is named after and cited by, Julie and Hillary Goodridge, subsequently amicably divorced in July 2006.[2]"

The Goodridges were the lead plaintiffs, and they amicably separated in 2006 but there has been no indication of whether or not they have legally divorced. Furthermore, the citation provided does not relate in any way to the statement. Therefore, I'm removing the section.--Erin1983 23:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the correct term is separated not divorced. Re-instating with the correction and fuller citations. The original source had more than "no relation" to the text. -- Yellowdesk 14:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It now covers their marriage and divorce in just a few words. Not critical info, but worth keeping I think. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2004 edits

JDR, WHen you did not respond to any of the comments added to Talk:Same-sex marriage, I assumed you were in agreement with the consensus arrived at there. Can you please explain what it is that you dispute in this article? Thanks, Paige 03:43, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Paige, the lack of an immediate response is not an implicit agreement with the discussion. It is useful to not get into a "back and forth" when editing ... and am trying to do that ... and I believe that why this is disputed is explianed in the homosexual marriage article (and associated talk page). Sincerely, JDR

why Dept of Public Health?

For the foreigners I would like to see some kind of comment on how the Department of Public Health gets into this case.

If I understand your question correctly, the answer is, "because they are the department of the state government that issues marriage certificates"

Acegikmo1 21:40, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Has been addressed. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

needs to be renamed

This page really must be moved to a new page called Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. The protocol on Wikipedia is not to abbreviate words in case names (and anyway, according to the Bluebook, "department" should be abbreviated "dep't"). I am going to move the article now, and change links accordingly. Hydriotaphia 07:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Second class citizens"

I've checked through the Massachusetts State Constitution and can find nowere a prohibition or mention of "second class citizens". Can someone provide a citation for that, or fix it to the correct phrase, or just excise that whole phrase? Thanx 68.39.174.238 08:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the court's decision, which states "[The Massachusetts Constitution] forbids the creation of second-class citizens" in the first paragraph. I will try to clarify the phrasing in the article a bit.--Inonit 12:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dissent?

What were the dissents? Did they state that gay marriage should not be allowed and civil unions should, or did they say that both ought to be illegal? -- Dandelions

Now covered. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political process

I've made some changes trying to clarify what happened in the political arena after Goodridge. I'm not sure all of my information is current, and I didn't do a very good job of doing the research necessary to have good cites in this section. I hereby call for improvement (I may get to it myself at some point).--Inonit 15:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Blue Jack Hop

There were some good things added, and an update is needed. The tax commissioner guy is irrelevant, though (as is his relative education level to that of his successor) and adjectives like "hoary" and "morally repugnant" have no place in an encyclopedia. Try to write it so that we don't know which side you're on. :) --Inonit 01:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ACLU cases litigated category?

The ACLU did not "litigate" Goodridge; they filed an amicus brief. Removing this category. --lquilter 04:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Requirement' of the legislature?

The article currently (19 February 2007) speaks of a requirement imposed upon the legislature by the court:

Because of the unusual nature of the 180-day period, and the requirement that the legislature rectify the situation (rather than the court issuing a specific order), some in the legislature advocated responding to Goodridge by creating a system of civil unions...

Yet from what I can see, the actual ruling does not speak of a "requirement":

In their complaint the plaintiffs request only a declaration that their exclusion and the exclusion of other qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage violates Massachusetts law. 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. We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion.

To "permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion" is surely not the same thing as "require the legislature to rectify the situation," is it? Echevalier 09:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is now handled via a quote from the decision, and later mention of the Legislature's failure to act. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution "unconstitutional"?

"...the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution..." Does anyone else have an issue with this? How can a court rule part of the constitution "unconstitutional"? Mlaperle (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]