When I was asked to think about a policy that affected me or my community, I found it difficult. Personally, I haven't had many problems or interesting stories related to politics. However, my LGBT friends did. This is a policy that affects my entire Massachusetts community as well as the community of close friends I have around me. The policy I decided to analyze is that of same-sex marriage. In Massachusetts, it has been legal for people of the same sex to marry since 2004. In the rest of the country, it is still an issue that gays and lesbians face on a daily basis. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essay To analyze a policy, one must go back to its roots. Where did it all start? You could argue that it all started with marriage, or when men and women started coming out. In the Massachusetts case, however, it all started with a lawsuit. As with many policy or law changes, there was a lawsuit against a State Department that called for changes. In the case of same-sex marriage, this case is Goodridge et al. vs Ministry of Public Health. The trial began on March 4, 2003 and ended on November 18, 2003. On November 18, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry under the Massachusetts constitution. State. (Advocates and defenders of gays and lesbians, nd). How did this decision come about? Who was involved? What issues surround the policy that was put in place? This is a complex issue that many people are still fighting for or against across the country. In the case of Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health, GLAD represented seven couples who were denied marriage licenses in Massachusetts. The seven couples were Hillary and Julie Goodridge, David Wilson and Robert Compton, Michael Horgan and Edward Balmelli, Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade, Gary Chalmers and Richard Linell, Heidi Norton and Gina Smith, and Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies. All of these couples faced unique challenges due to the lack of legal marriage. Same-sex couples have faced these challenges for a long time and still face them in many states across the country. These couples and many others in the state are key players in MA's policy that allows same-sex couples to marry. What are some of the basic benefits and rights they lacked before getting legally married? When Julie gave birth to her and Hillary's daughter, their daughter had problems swallowing the birth fluid and had to be placed in neonatal intensive care. Hillary found it difficult to see her daughter or Julie (who was also recovering from a difficult birth) simply because they were not legally married. They even have health care proxies for each other, but Hillary still hasn't been allowed to see Julie or her new daughter. In Rob and David's case, Rob has heart issues. David also has medical issues. Insurance companies would not speak to the partner simply because he or she was not legally married. In Michael and Edward's case, they were able to obtain health insurance for Mike through Ed's work, but had to pay income tax on the value of the coverage - legal spouses do not have to do it. In 1999, Ellen Wade fell ill with breast cancer. Due to the state of same-sex marriage laws, she was unsure whether her partner and daughter would benefitfinancial and emotional support in the event of death. Gary Chalmers was unable to add his partner, Rich, to his family health insurance plan because they were not legally married. As a result, he had to take out a separate health insurance policy, which would not have been the case if his partner had been his wife. Heidi Norton and Gina Smith have two sons. The sons were borne and delivered by Heidi and given the surname Norton Smith to show that they were both the children of women. Gina had to file adoption papers because Heidi and Gina were not married; Gina therefore had no parental rights. Gloria and Linda met in 1970 and worked at the same mental health agency. Because their relationship reportedly caused problems at the workplace, they founded their own psychotherapy practice, rather than live in secrecy. Gloria and Linda faced many financial difficulties, especially when trying to buy a house. The bank did not want to finance them together because they were not related. They were also unable to take out joint health insurance. These are just a few examples of the difficulties same-sex couples face when they cannot be legally married. (All anecdotes adapted from the cases of Good Ridge et al. against the Department of Public Health) Along with these specific difficulties, it is a basic human right to feel accepted. All of the couples mentioned want to marry for the sake of marriage – they want legal recognition of a very real relationship. Some wonder why they couldn't settle for a civil union. The answer is simple: they are not the same and, in some states, civil unions are not even legal. To understand the differences between the two, we must first understand what a civil union is. According to GLAD, a civil union "provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections as well as the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word 'marriage'" (December 2011 ). created by Vermont in 2000 and has been adopted by New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Delaware and Illinois. A civil union is NOT a marriage, as some state leaders would have us believe. Many of the couples I described above had commitment ceremonies, similar to weddings, which confuses people. Although in any state and country a same-sex couple can promise each other, in many states and countries this is not legally binding. One of the main differences between a marriage and a civil union is the word itself. When you fill out a form for work, school or government, there are always boxes for single, married, widowed or divorced. There is no box for civil unions. Besides the legal forms, the difference in terms is that marriage carries a certain connotation. We all know what it means to be married and we all know the rights that come with a covenant and marriage certificate. Couples in civil unions do not have the chance to experience everything that comes with marriage. Civil unions are extremely restrictive in many ways. According to GLAD, there are several factors limiting the rights of couples in civil unions that are not present in legal marriages. These factors are: Portability – A marriage is generally respected no matter what state you go to, civil unions are not, as not all states have them. Ending a Civil Union – “If you are married, you can divorce in any state in the country. of which you are a resident. But if States continue to lack respectto civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than by establishing residency in a state that respects civil unions. (GLAD, December 2011) Federal Taxes and Benefits - Legal marriage entitles couples to 1,138 federal benefits, including work leave to care for a family member and Social Security survivor benefits. They are also limited in certain tax functions, because civil unions are not recognized at the federal level, but at the state level. This can cause problems in some systems, such as Medicaid and government assistance such as food stamps. Forms - I've mentioned this before, but there is usually no box on federal or even state forms for "civil union," so couples are often left in limbo because they are neither married nor singles. Some forms offer new options such as "living with a partner", but this is not the same as marriage or civil union. Second Class Status – A civil union was created only for same-sex couples. It is separate and unequal treatment. The U.S. Constitution calls for equality for all, and people continue to use it to fight for federal recognition of same-sex marriage. All of these factors weighed into Massachusetts' decision to take a step forward and legalize same-sex marriage. But how exactly did this happen? We have already identified the actors of this policy: the seven couples who filed a complaint about this policy and LGBT people across the country. And we all know what the stakes are: equal rights for everyone to marry the man or woman they love and with whom they want to spend the rest of their life. Adoption and child-rearing are also at stake - currently, two people can be the legal parents of a child, but this involves a rigorous amount of red tape - If marriage were legal everywhere, there would be fewer paperwork and much less discrimination. But how was Massachusetts able to take this big step forward? In order to answer this question, we need to look at the framework given by Deborah Stone in Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. According to this framework, there are five basic steps to developing policy: Action to achieve the objectives Predict the possible consequences of each alternative Evaluate the possible consequences of each alternative Select the alternative that maximizes the achievement of the objectives (Stone, p.8 ) Although not all policies follow this pattern exactly, we can use it as a starting point in almost any policy we can think of. Massachusetts has come a long way toward same-sex marriage equality, but it got there when Goodridge et al. against the Department of Public Health was decided in favor of Goodridge. Identifying the Goals The goals in this case were very clear from the start, with the overarching goal being equality for all men and women. MA has been at the forefront of many civil rights issues, so it made sense that they would lead on this one as well. Many couples, like the Goodridges, were together for many years and even had a child or two that they raised together as their own flesh and blood. However, in the absence of legal recognition of their family unit, couples, and often children, were likely to feel excluded from their own community. Children can be especially cruel when a child does not have married parents. Adults in same-sex relationships are often sidelined in areas such as everythingwhich includes benefits for the spouse, such as health insurance or life insurance. In a country like the United States, where our constitution says it values ​​equality, it's mind-boggling how much of a problem same-sex relationships can be. To put it simply, the objective of the seven couples, and GLAD in the case of Goodridge et al. against the Department of Public Health, was to ensure equality – to ensure marriage for all. In doing so, it would bring together several smaller goals: making children feel their family is whole, providing health and life insurance to couples of any orientation, reducing confusion between legal and federal forms, and granting comprehensive and non-discriminatory status for any couple who chooses to be together out of mutual love and respect. Identifying alternative courses of action to achieve goals For many people, the only obvious course of action would be to remove the part of the law where it It is said that marriage is only between one man and one woman. In essence, this is what Massachusetts has done, with the repeal of Section 28A of Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts Constitution. But there were other options. Massachusetts also could have adopted civil unions, as Vermont did. MA could also have kept the marriage as it always was. As you can see, there are not many alternatives to ensuring complete equality for everyone in the state of Massachusetts. Predicting and Evaluating the Consequences of Each Alternative There are positive and negative consequences to almost every action or policy in the world. It's something akin to "every action has an equal and opposite reaction." Every proposed policy has an intended consequence and an actual consequence. Let's look at each alternative and the specific changes it would bring about. If Massachusetts had enacted civil unions, changes would have been made to the state constitution, as well as municipal offices and courts. In the case of Vermont, civil union law also began with a lawsuit, Baker v. Vermont. In this case, it was decided that “same-sex couples are entitled under Chapter I, Article 7, of the Vermont Constitution to the same benefits and protections afforded by Vermont law to married opposite-sex couples.” (Baker v. Vermont, 2000). ). This decision created a whole new family unit, intended to parallel civil marriage. The Civil Union was created specifically for same-sex couples. The positive consequences of this are the legal rights afforded to couples within states. Almost all of the same rights apply as for a marriage, except legally. This would be a step forward from banning same-sex couples from marriage altogether, but it still has flaws. For example, if residents of Vermont, who entered into a civil union there, wanted to move to another state, such as Kentucky, their civil union would not be valid and they would not be recognized as a couple because Kentucky does not have no such laws. .. A marriage, on the other hand, would be accepted, at least socially, almost everywhere. Another consequence of the adoption of civil unions would be that they do not constitute recognized statuses at the federal level. There would still be issues such as taxes and if one partner was in the military (for example) their civilly united partner would not receive any benefits. So, to summarize civil unions, the negative consequence would be no federal recognition or benefits, and the positive consequence would be that at the state level, same-sex couples in civil unions would have the same rights as couples.