Parker v. Hurley

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on January 31, 2008 unanimously affirmed District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf’s dismissal of a lawsuit brought by two sets of parents against the Lexington school system.

In the suit, parents David and Tonia Parker and Robert and Robin Wirthlin claimed that a Lexington elementary school violated their constitutional rights by exposing their children to books portraying many different kinds of families, including non-judgmental depictions of families headed by same-sex couples.

GLAD authored an amicus in the case.

The plaintiff parents filed a petition seeking review before the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied in October, 2008.

Schulman v. Reilly

Home » Massachusetts » Page 37

GLAD filed this lawsuit to challenge the Attorney General’s decision that a proposed ballot question that would once again exclude same-sex couples from marriage satisfies the Massachusetts constitution. The suit was filed on January 3, 2006 and oral arguments took place in Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on May 4, 2006. The SJC ruled on July 10, 2006 that the citizen-initiated ballot question challenging marriage equality for same-sex couples could go forward.

Cote-Whitacre et al. v. Dept. Public Health

Home » Massachusetts » Page 37

On March 30, 2006, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court determined in the absence of a home state’s “express prohibition” against marriage by same-sex couples – through a constitutional amendment, statute, or controlling appellate decision, Massachusetts must allow same-sex couples from that state to marry. This decision had a substantial impact on three states:

Rhode Island
On September 29, 2006, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Thomas Connolly ruled there is no explicit prohibition in Rhode Island law preventing same-sex couples from marrying, and, as such, Rhode Island same-sex couples could come to Massachusetts to wed. In February, 2007, RI Attorney General Patrick Lynch issued a statement that Rhode Island will recognize the marriages of same-sex couples married in Massachusetts, and GLAD is working with partners in Rhode Island to ensure that these marriages are respected.

New York State
Judge Connolly also ruled that because the New Court of Appeals ruled on July 6, 2006, against marriage equality in the state’s own marriage case, couples from New York cannot marry in Massachusetts. GLAD subsequently returned to court on behalf of the New York couple in the case, Tanya Wexler and Amy Zimmerman, who married in Massachusetts in May, 2004. In a judgment on May 10, 2007, Judge Connolly ruled that Massachusetts marriages licenses issued to New York same-sex couples before July 6, 2006 are completely valid and never should have been put into question by the 1913 law.

New Mexico
Finally, noting that New Mexico law is also silent on the question of marriage between same-sex couples, GLAD worked with the Commonwealth to correct the erroneous denial of marriage licenses to New Mexico same-sex couples. On July 18, 2007, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and Registry of Vital Statistics issued an official corrective notice providing clerks with the authority to grant such licenses.

C. J. Doyle v. Goodridge

Home » Massachusetts » Page 37

One of a barrage of actions filed early in 2004 to prevent the implementation of Goodridge on May 17, 2004, this action sought a further stay of Goodridge until the constitutional amendment process could be completed. Oral argument was heard on May 2, 2005. In June 2005 the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the dismissal of the case.

Netherland et al. v. Whiteman et al.

Home » Massachusetts » Page 37

GLAD is putting the right-wing on notice that they cannot use intimidation tactics to try to stop vitally important sex education information from getting to young people. In violation of Massachusetts wiretapping and privacy laws, Scott Whiteman, Brian Camenker, and the right-wing organization Parents Rights Coalition publicly distributed a tape recording of a sexuality and HIV/AIDS prevention education workshop conducted in March, 2000 at a conference sponsored by GLSEN.

GLAD filed suit in Massachusetts Superior Court on behalf of Julie Netherland, a former employee of the Department of Education, and obtained a temporary restraining order (later converted to a preliminary injunction) to stop the defendants from further distributing the tape recording. After a lengthy discovery period, GLAD filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the court. The case was settled on March 9, 2005.

T.F. v. B.L.

Home » Massachusetts » Page 37

GLAD represented T.F., a biological mother seeking child support from her former partner, B.F. The two had decided together to have a child, with both agreeing to be parents and raise the child together. The couple broke up before the child was born. GLAD argued that when an individual agrees to bring a child into the world, and the child would not have been born without that agreement, that individual has an obligation to support the child who is born as a result. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled on August 25, 2004 that the non-biological partner does not have an obligation to support the child, even though the court acknowledge that she intentionally and purposefully acted to bring the child into the world.

Commonwealth v. Smith

Home » Massachusetts » Page 37

In 2000, GLAD filed a brief in a Middlesex Superior Court criminal action on behalf of a person with HIV who had been charged by Middlesex District Attorney Martha Coakley with assault with intent to kill for throwing feces at a probation officer and biting a corrections officer. Such conduct, while inexcusable, is not a mode of HIV transmission; and these types of prosecutions serve no purpose other than to spread fear and hysteria about HIV among judges, jurors and the public at large. Faced with a trial judge who believed that HIV could be transmitted by saliva, the defendant entered into a last-minute plea agreement that resulted in his being sentenced to three years in prison (much more than a typical sentence for drunk driving)!

In 2003, the defendant filed an appeal seeking to vacate his guilty plea because it was based on his public defender’s advice in the trial court that he disclose his HIV-positive status during grand jury proceedings. The question was whether this was bad advice because the Massachusetts HIV testing and confidentiality statute prohibits HIV testing or disclosure of HIV status without written consent. The absolute requirement of informed consent for HIV testing has been a key element of the public health effort to stem the tide of the HIV epidemic. GLAD filed an amicus brief to ensure that the Appeals Court did not craft exceptions to the statute that would undermine its purpose in many contexts beyond this case.

In its decision, the Appeals Court ruled that the defendant had not met the high burden of demonstrating ineffective assistance of counsel and stopped short of ruling on the scope of the HIV testing statute.

Goodridge et al. v. Dept. Public Health

Home » Massachusetts » Page 37

Goodridge et al. v. Dept. Public Health

In a historic opinion on November 18, 2003, GLAD won a ruling from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that gay and lesbian couples can no longer be excluded from civil marriage rights in Massachusetts. GLAD filed the case in April 2001. The 4-3 opinion was the first of its kind in this country by a final appellate court.

On February 4, 2004 the Supreme Judicial Court issued its Opinions of the Justices to the Senate confirming that a proposed civil union bill does not meet the mandates of liberty and equality of the state constitution. The Court reconfirmed that its ruling in Goodridge v. Dep’t. of Public Health required the end of the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. This opinion was issued in response to the Massachusetts Senate’s request for an advisory opinion as to whether a “civil unions” bill would satisfy the state constitution. The Court recognized that civil unions create a separate and unequal status.

GLADLaw · The Dignity and Equality of All Individuals: Goodridge v. Department of Public Health

At its core, marriage is about the love and commitment of two people, people who have made the choice to spend their lives together.

Marriage is also a bundle of legal rights meant to protect spouses and families; an adult rite of passage; a way for two people to honor their relationship; an opportunity for family and friends to bond together; and a respected cultural institution. It is also a fundamental legal right and a personal choice—not something that should be decided by the state.

Commonwealth v. Landry

Home » Massachusetts » Page 37

In a major victory for public health programs that stem the tide of HIV and hepatitis C, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled on December 6, 2002 that needle exchange program participants may lawfully possess needles throughout the state, not merely in the city or town in which the program is sited. The court also ruled that police may not arrest a needle exchange participant for unlawful possession of syringes if the person presents the police with a valid needle exchange program identification card. The landmark decision puts to rest the claims by the Lynn Police Department and some others that the protection from arrest applies only in the few locales in Massachusetts that have approved the siting of a needle exchange program—Boston, Cambridge, Provincetown, and Northampton.

GLAD filed a “friend of the court” brief on behalf of thirty state and national medical, public health, substance abuse, and AIDS service organizations, including the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the Boston and Cambridge Public Health Departments. The defendant, Maria Landry, was represented by the Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts.
The court agreed with GLAD’s argument, based on conclusive scientific evidence that needle exchange saves lives by reducing transmission of HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C, and is one of the most effective mechanisms to engage the high-risk population of intravenous drug users in substance abuse treatment services.

Although Massachusetts lags behind many states in providing access to clean needles for intravenous drug users, the Massachusetts Legislature has authorized the establishment of ten programs throughout the state, as long as “local approval” is granted by the city or town in which the program is sited. Programs currently exist in Boston, Cambridge, Northampton, and Provincetown. At the time that the legislature passed the law authorizing needle exchange programs, it also amended the law that specifies who may lawfully possess a hypodermic needle by providing that possession of needles obtained through an authorized exchange program “shall not be a crime.”

In its decision, the state’s highest court agreed with GLAD that the Legislature clearly intended that once a needle is lawfully obtained, the exemption from criminal prosecution is not limited to the town in which the program is sited. Further, needle exchange participants who possess a valid enrollment card should be immune from arrest for possession of a needle.

Albano v. Reilly et al

Home » Massachusetts » Page 37

In Albano et al v. Reilly et al, GLAD challenged the propriety of the Attorney General’s certification of the ballot initiative. GLAD’s claim was based on the sweeping nature of the amendment. GLAD claimed that the petitions violated rules in the Constitution about the subject matter of initiative petitions. Unfortunately, the SJC did not share GLAD’s view that they related to the power of the courts and affected individual access to the courts, both of which are excluded matters under the state constitution. Instead, the Court ruled that the petitions were correctly certified and the initiative process could proceed.

Though the court rejected GLAD’s claim, the decision was rendered moot by the Massachusetts legislature, ultimately defeated the amendment by voting to adjourn the Constitutional Convention in July, 2002 without taking the vote necessary to put the question before the voters in November 2004.