Talk:Goodridge v. Department of Public Health

message: 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)
thread_title: Lack of Sources

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Divorce section to be removed

message: 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)
replies: text:  Has been addressed. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: why Dept of Public Health?

message: 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)
thread_title: needs to be renamed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Second class citizens"

message: 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)
thread_title: Dissent?

message: 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)
thread_title: Political process

message: 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)
thread_title: Edits by Blue Jack Hop

message: The ACLU did not "litigate" Goodridge; they filed an amicus brief. Removing this category.  --lquilter 04:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ACLU cases litigated category?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: 'Requirement' of the legislature?

message: "...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)
thread_title:  Constitution "unconstitutional"?