|
|
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 14, 2008 WBA Dismayed by SJC Decision Regarding Consortium Claims for Same-Sex Marriages But Heartened by Court's Statement of Goodridge's Viability (Boston)- July 10, 2008 - The Women's Bar Association of Massachusetts, a leading organization for women in the legal profession, today announces its disappointement with the Supreme Judicial Court's July 10, 2008 ruling in Michelle D. Charron et al. v. Edward L. Amaral et al., 2008 WL 2672967, Mass., July 10, 2008 (NO. SJC-09942). The SJC has denied a same-sex couple the right to recover for loss of consortium in a medical malpractice case where the alleged medical malpractice occurred prior to their marriage. The couple was married on May 20, 2004, soon after such a union became legal in the Commonwealth Noting that a civil legal marriage is a prerequisite to numerous benefits under the law, including claims for loss of consortium, the SJC stated, "however sympathetic we may be to the discriminatory effects the marriage licensing statute had before our Goodridge [v.Department of Public Health] decision . . . to allow [the plaintiff] to recover for a loss of consortium if she can prove she would have been married [at the time of the alleged negligent treatment] but for the ban on same-sex marriage could open numbers of cases in all areas of the law to the same argument." The SJC further noted that "Goodridge granted same-sex couples the right to choose to be married after a specific date; the court never stated that people in same-sex, committed relationships . . . would be considered married before they obtained a marriage license." The Women's Bar Association of Massachusetts is "saddened that the SJC has refused to allow this same-sex family this basic right of marriage," said WBA President-Elect Michelle Peirce, "but pleased that the court stands by its decision in Goodridge." As Justice Marshall stated in offering her concurrence with the decision, this case is "a vivid reminder of the constitutional mandate of equality under the law, and the costs imposed when society falls short of that mandate." The WBA believes that this case underscores the importance of marriage equality for all persons. The WBA has long believed that same sex marriage is a fundamental civil right and has made it a top legislative and judicial priority. The WBA joined in celebrating the right of same-sex couples to marry in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on May 17, 2004. In 2007, as one of its many legislative initiatives, the WBA worked along with other organizations to defeat the proposed amendment to the state constitution to ban same sex marriage. The WBA supports full implementation of the Goodridge decision on same-sex marriage and removing barriers such as the 1913 anti-miscegenation law. WBA President, Kathy Jo Cook, represented the plaintiff in Charron v. Amaral.
About the Women's Bar Association of Massachusetts |
