Defendants' Amicus Briefs
[**On December 20, 2002, the Massachusetts Attorney General's office filed its brief in defense of Massachusetts marriage laws with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Supporting the Commonwealth's arguments in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health were 15 "friend of the court" briefs. Over 75 individuals and organizations joined in filing these briefs, forming a diverse coalition which represents a broad range of political, religious and professional backgrounds. The amicus parties included family law professors, constitutional experts, sociologists, psychologists, state legislators, state attorneys general, pro-family groups, and various clergy and religious organizations.**]
Agudath Israel Amicus (26kb)
Filed on behalf of Agudath Israel of America and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the brief addresses the social, historical and moral consensus embodied in Massachusetts marriage laws.
Catholic Action League Amicus (100kb)
Filed on behalf of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, the brief articulates the relationship between consummation, natural sexual intercourse, and laws defining marriage as a male-female union.
Common Good Foundation Amicus (92kb)
Filed on behalf of the Common Good Foundation, Catholic Vote, and the American Center for Law and Justice, the brief articulates a constitutional case for marriage as a male-female union.
Freemarket Foundation Amicus (58kb)
Filed on behalf of the Free Market Foundation, the brief demonstrates that many benefits traditionally associated with marriage are already available to unmarried couples through alternative legal arrangements. Additionally, the brief notes that private ordering of their relationships would provide plaintiffs with greater flexibility and interstate recognition than would same-sex "marriage."
International Professors of Law Amicus (94kb)
Filed on behalf of 15 professors and advisors of law from various nations around the world, including Argentina, Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, the United States, and Spain, the brief urges the Court to reject suggestions that it should rely on global trends as a means of interpreting the Massachusetts Constitution. The brief also corrects the false impression that there is a global trend toward legal recognition of same-sex "marriage." The vast majority of the world's nations extend no legal recognition to same-sex relationships, while those that have done so tend to choose more limited forms of registered partnership over full "marriage" recognition.
Joseph Ureneck Amicus (38kb)
Filed on behalf of Joseph Ureneck, a concerned resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the brief argues that marriage is and has always been understood to be a male-female union, that procreation and childrearing are best left to married, male-female unions, and that the judicial redefition of marriage would set Massachusetts down a "slippery slope" toward the effective abolition of marriage.
Marriage Law Project Amicus (100kb)
Filed on behalf of the Marriage Law Project, the brief explains that there is no fundamental right to same-sex "marriage" under the Massachusetts Constitution, and that a finding of such a right would run contrary to the history of the Massachusetts Constitution.
Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage Amicus (52kb)
Filed on behalf of the Massachusetts Citizens Alliance and Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage, the brief argues that the Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over the case in that the Massachusetts Constitution gives the Governor and Council jurisdiction in cases involving marriage, divorce and alimony.
Massachusetts Family Institute Amicus (97kb)
Filed on behalf of the Massachusetts Family Institute, the Institute for Family Development, and the Parents' Rights Coalition, the brief argues that the central purpose of the Massachusetts marriage statutes is to promote procreation and childbearing in stable biological families.
Massachusetts Legislators' Amicus (99kb)
Filed on behalf of 5 Massachusetts legislators, the brief urges the Court to defer to the legislature on complex public policy questions which deserve full and open debate.
NARTH, et al. Amicus (208kb)
Filed on behalf of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), Focus on the Family, Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality (JONAH), the International Healing Foundation, the Massachusetts Physicians Resource Council, the Catholic Medical Association, Courage, New Creations, A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D, M.B.A, M.P.H, Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D, and Christopher Wolfe, Ph.D., the brief articulates legally significant differences between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples, while also noting that much of the social science data offered in support of same-sex "marriage" contains significant methodological flaws.
National Legal Foundation Amicus (98kb)
Filed on behalf of the National Legal Foundation, the brief responds to the argument that same-sex "marriage" is mandated under the constitutional right of free expression guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Professors of Law and Jurisprudence Amicus (95kb)
Filed on behalf of 17 professors of law and jurisprudence, the brief argues that Massachusetts marriage laws recognizing marriage as a male-female institution do not violate either the Massachusetts Equal Rights Amendment or the general equality guarantee contained in part 1, article 1 of the Massachusetts Constitution.
Religious Coalition Amicus (127kb)
The brief was filed behalf of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the Massachusetts State Council of the Knights of Columbus, the Greek Orthodox Diocese of Boston and New England, and the New England District of the Church of the Nazarene, joined by a number of individual clergy and religious leaders. The brief argues that marriage is a unique social institution, articulating a number of vital social functions performed by marriage and concluding that the state has a compelling interest in the protection of marriage and the traditional family unit.
State Attorney General Amicus (92kb)
Filed on behalf of the states of Utah, Nebraska and South Dakota, the brief urges the Massachusetts Court to respect the role of the legislature and to appreciate the interjurisdictional impact which its decision may have on the marriage recognition laws of other states.
Plaintiffs' Amicus Briefs
[**More information can be found at www.glad.org**]
Benefits of Marriage Amicus (1.84mb)
Civil Rights Amicus (142kb)
Professors of Constitutional Law Amicus (2.14mb)
Freedom of Expression Amicus (132kb)
History of Marriage Amicus (120kb)
Procreation Amicus (8.00mb)
Same-sex Parenting Amicus
International Law Amicus
Remedies Amicus
Religious Coalition Amicus (68kb)
Massachusetts Bar Association
