
Before same-sex marriage was US law, they said ‘I do' in Massachusetts
By the time the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015, that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage, 37 states and the District of Columbia already allowed it, and public opinion was moving swiftly toward acceptance.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Today, though, the picture is more complicated. Last month, a Gallup survey found that while 68% of Americans support same-sex marriage, approval among Republicans had slipped to 41% after peaking at 55% in 2021 and 2022. And the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling that a right to abortion could not be found in the Constitution raised fears among many supporters of same-sex marriage that the court could overturn the Obergefell decision on similar grounds.
Advertisement
20
Related
:
Those who said 'I do' in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004, were among the first same-sex couples to be legally married in the United States. (The marriages of thousands of couples who were issued marriage licenses in San Francisco earlier that year were later voided by the California Supreme Court.)
Advertisement
We spoke to five Massachusetts couples, four of whom were plaintiffs in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the case that led to the decision by the state's Supreme Judicial Court. They shared some of the ways in which marriage has shaped their lives.
Julie and Hillary Goodridge.
Greene, Bill Globe Staff
Hillary Goodridge and Julie N.W. Goodridge
Boston
One month after Hillary Goodridge said 'I do' to Julie Goodridge, her longtime partner, she found herself in the hospital needing stitches after an accident involving a rake and a split lip.
As they were checking in, a nurse asked Hillary who Julie was. Julie said, 'her wife.' It was the first time either had publicly used the word to describe her partner.
'We walked right into the emergency room as a married couple,' Julie said.
Related
:
It was quite a change from nearly a decade earlier, when Julie gave birth to the couple's daughter, Annie. Hillary was in the room for Julie's planned cesarean section, but during the procedure, the doctors realized the baby had ingested something and sent her to the neonatal intensive care unit. Hillary was initially barred from the NICU and from Julie's recovery room.
'At that moment, you're not really thinking about social change,' Julie, 67, said. But two decades later, she says, 'the cultural moment that we are in now is so filled with anxiety and vitriol.'
'We're certainly not set up well at the Supreme Court for our families to be protected,' she said. 'If we're going to continue with the current perspective that prior decisions that prior courts have made have limited value, equal marriage is going to have a problem.'
Advertisement
Hillary, 69, remains more sanguine. 'There is an entire generation of new adults, new voters, who grew up in a world where we had marriage equality,' she said. 'I do not believe we will turn that back.'
When the couple married at the Unitarian Universalist Association, overlooking Boston Common and the state House, Annie was the ring bearer.
Although the Goodridges separated two years later, Hillary said of their marriage, 'It was totally worth it. I have never regretted it.'
In September, Hillary and Julie were proud mothers of the bride when Annie got married in Massachusetts.
Eve C. Alpern and Brenda Morris
Belmont, Massachusetts
In 2007, Brenda Morris gave birth to identical twin boys, Jaden and Isaac. Through the chaotic early days of caring for newborn twins, Brenda and her wife, Eve Alpern, had to navigate a bureaucratic thicket. To guarantee that they both had full parental rights under state law, they chose to legally adopt the children -- a step that they said required Brenda to first sever her rights as the biological parent.
'From hospital policies to custody laws, school registration and passport applications,' Eve said, 'raising our kids has been impacted by our marriage.'
Related
:
Eve, however, had never wanted to get married. 'I associated the institution of marriage with treating women like property,' she said. 'But I envisioned a life in love.'
Despite that feeling, she found herself waiting in line next to Brenda at City Hall in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at 2 p.m. May 16, 2004. At midnight, along with nearly 250 other couples, they were among the first same-sex couples in the city to receive marriage licenses.
Advertisement
Later, they had 75 close friends and family come for an interfaith service, led by a lesbian rabbi, at a historic estate in Arlington, Massachusetts. 'We felt blessed and very, very lucky,' Brenda, 54, said.
'The legal wins were huge, but they don't mean we're fully equal,' Eve, 52, said. 'In this political climate, rights we fought so hard for are being rolled back overnight. The hate is louder. The threats are real. Marriage equality was never the endgame; it was a beginning. We're still fighting to feel safe, seen and secure in our own country.'
From left, Mike Horgan and his husband, Ed Balmelli, at their home in Boston.
SOPHIE PARK/NYT
Mike Horgan and Ed Balmelli
Boston
Over the course of 20 years of marriage, Ed Balmelli and Mike Horgan both lost their parents. Beyond sharing their grief, they said, their marriage also saved them from additional anguish as they made funeral arrangements and divided their parents' assets with their siblings.
They were also listed in the obituaries in the same manner as their married siblings.
In 2000, the couple traveled to Vermont to have a civil union ceremony. 'That was the closest thing we could do to get married,' Ed said. 'But then you tell people, 'We're a civil union,' and they're like, 'What does that mean?''
Questions like that convinced the couple to join the lawsuit. 'My feeling on it was that if this era got by us and we weren't involved, I think I would regret that,' Mike said. 'I think it's the most important thing that we've ever done in our lives.'
They no longer have to explain their relationship, and when their parents died, they were treated like their many siblings in their large Irish families.
Advertisement
As Ed, 65, and Mike, 66, celebrated their 20th anniversary last year, they said their joy had been tempered by their concerns about the Supreme Court. After the court legalized same-sex marriage across the country, Mike said, 'we had the feeling that we were done fighting now, we can rest easy. But, he said, 'if they can take away a woman's right to an abortion, they can take anything away.'
David Wilson spoke in Arlington as his husband Robert Compton looked on.
John Tlumacki/Globe Staff
David Wilson and Robert Compton
Provincetown, Massachusetts
Two decades after Rob Compton married David Wilson, he said he has to explain to his grandchildren why their wedding was such a big deal in 2004. 'Today, we have no qualms about it,' he said. But young people, he said, 'just don't get' why so many were against it at the time.
Related
:
Both men had been married to women and had children, and knew that marriage provided tangible benefits. 'If you say, 'We're married,' immediately, everybody knows what that means, and they treat you accordingly,' David, 81, said.
Rob had been the head of a large dental group practice in Michigan when he came out in 1994. When his partners in the practice later asked him to resign, without giving cause, he said, he refused. He was then fired. (He sued for wrongful termination and won the case and the appeal.) By the spring of 1996, he had moved to Massachusetts, one of the few states at the time that banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, housing and other services.
He met David soon afterward; they moved in together and had a commitment ceremony in 2000.
During an overnight emergency room visit for a kidney stone, David was denied access to Rob's room. It was a shocking way for them to learn the limits of the state anti-discrimination laws. 'It made me aware of the fact that I have individual rights in Massachusetts and some workplace protections,' Rob, 76, said, even as he and David were denied the federal rights and protections that straight married couples enjoyed.
Advertisement
That episode, Rob said, convinced the couple that they should become part of the Goodridge lawsuit.
Today, they said, they are hopeful about the changes that have taken place in the last 50 years.
'When David and I were young in the '50s and '60s, you would never admit you were queer,' Rob said. Now 'a lot of young people today feel empowered to just be themselves. That's a huge swing.'
From left, Heidi and Gina Nortonsmith in Northampton.
JAROD LEW/NYT
Gina and Heidi Nortonsmith
Northampton, Massachusetts
For years after Heidi Nortonsmith and Gina Nortonsmith were legally married, they carried their marriage certificate everywhere they went. It afforded them 'a measure of security for when we traveled out of state or needed to make our way to the hospital for a family emergency,' Heidi said.
The couple, who have been together since 1990, held a commitment ceremony in 1993. Heidi gave birth to their children, Avery, in 1996, and Quinn, in 2000. Gina was not legally recognized as a parent until she completed the process of adopting them, about a year after each was born.
Even so, they considered themselves lucky.
'We live in Northampton; it was a very supportive community,' Gina said. 'We were already out. We each had very supportive families. We were not in danger of losing a job because of it.'
Gina and Heidi, both 60, gave their two sons the last name Nortonsmith -- a combination of their family names. After they were married, they legally changed their last names, too. 'That was the day that we all became Nortonsmiths,' Gina said.
It took a decade for the couple to be comfortable traveling without their marriage certificate.
'Without even noticing a precise moment,' Heidi said, 'we'd each become comfortable, in the sense that our marriage would be understood and respected, no matter where we traveled throughout the country.'
This article originally appeared in
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Minnesota Poll: Walz approval slips, voters evenly divided on whether he should seek third term
Jun. 25—By Ryan Faircloth, Star Tribune (TNS) Gov. Tim Walz's approval rating has dropped to 49% since his failed run for vice president last year, and about half of Minnesotans say he shouldn't seek a third term in 2026, according to a new poll. The results suggest the DFL governor could face headwinds if he runs for a third consecutive term, particularly from voters in greater Minnesota and suburbs outside Hennepin and Ramsey counties. A majority of independents also disapprove of Walz's performance, according to the new Star Tribune/Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication Minnesota Poll, including about half who say he shouldn't run for re-election. Walz's standing at home appears to have taken a hit since his turn on the national stage; a Minnesota Poll conducted last September found 53% of Minnesotans approved of Walz's performance while 44% disapproved. Fifty percent of those surveyed in the latest Minnesota Poll disapprove of Walz's performance as governor, and just 1% are unsure. It's only the second time Walz's approval rating has fallen below 50% in the Minnesota Poll. "I think he's done harm to the state," said Gary Bettcher, an 82-year-old Republican from Bloomington. "He makes a fool of himself trying to get on the national scene like he's a big shot." (Scroll to the end of this article for full results for each question. More information about the poll methodology, a demographic breakdown of the sample and a map of the poll regions can be found Walz hasn't ruled out another run for national office in 2028, and he's recently traveled to key states in the Democratic Party's presidential nominating contest to give political speeches. He is still weighing whether to run for another term as governor and is expected to announce a decision this summer. On the prospect of Walz seeking a historic third consecutive term, 49% of respondents said he should step down while 45% said he should run again. Six percent aren't sure. Minnesota Republicans say the poll numbers suggest Walz could be vulnerable next year. They're seeking to win their first statewide election since Tim Pawlenty was re-elected governor in 2006. "The fact that more voters want Walz to step aside than run again says it all: His time is up," Minnesota GOP Chair Alex Plechash said in a statement Tuesday. "Outside of the DFL bubble, voters are sending a clear message—Governor Walz is out of touch and out of favor. Minnesota students are falling behind, fraud is rampant, and radical policies are taking priority over real people." Walz's spokesman, Teddy Tschann, said Tuesday that "we've seen polls that show him up and down and everywhere in between." "Here's what we know: Crime rates are down, graduation rates are up, and the Governor just balanced the state budget working with the most narrowly divided legislature in the whole country," Tschann said in a statement. "Governor Walz remains focused on doing the work of governor and making Minnesota the best state to live, work, and raise a family." The Minnesota Poll findings are based on interviews with 800 Minnesota registered voters conducted June 16-18. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. Men overwhelmingly disapprove of Walz's performance and believe he shouldn't run again, the poll found, while most women approve of the job he's doing and support him seeking a third term. Kathleen Jorde of South St. Paul said Walz has been a good governor and should run for re-election. She said she'd even like to see him run for president in 2028. Jorde, 73, said she appreciates Walz's support for public schools, including a policy he signed into law providing free school meals to all children. "There's been a lot of really positive things that have occurred in this state" during Walz's tenure, Jorde said, "and it's all for the betterment of the communities at whole." Bettcher criticized Walz's handling of the 2020 riots and some of the progressive policies he signed into law: "When he came into office, we had a nice surplus. Where'd that go? And my taxes didn't go down, my taxes went up." "It just doesn't make sense," Bettcher added. "Spend, spend, spend." In 2023, Walz and a DFL-controlled Legislature used most of a $17.6 billion surplus to pass a nearly $71 billion two-year budget, the largest in state history. It included some one-time spending while also creating new programs, such as free school meals. Walz has strong support among voters in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties. But his approval rating is underwater in the rest of the state, including in other suburban counties, where 60% of voters said they disapprove of his performance compared to 39% who approve. Gary Blanchard, a 62-year-old Republican from Lakeville, said he learned more about Walz's "extremely liberal" record when the governor ran for vice president last year. He said Walz "squandered" the previous budget surplus and signed into law policies many Minnesotans disagree with. A majority of college graduates and people of color approve of Walz's performance and said they would support him running for re-election. Most white voters and people without college degrees disapprove and don't want him to run again. Among independents, who said they don't lean toward either party, 54% disapprove of Walz's performance in office. A slightly smaller share of independents, 51%, do not want Walz to run for a third term, while 40% do and the rest aren't sure. Justin Prisendorf, an independent from Orono, said he isn't an enthusiastic Walz supporter, but he doesn't see any reason not to elect him again, either. Minnesota remains a great place to live and work, and Walz deserves some credit for that, Prisendorf said, though he believes taxes are a little too high. "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. If he feels there's still work to be done and he can persuade 51% of the electorate that he still can contribute, why not?" said Prisendorf, 57, who runs a home health care agency. David Sturrock, a political science professor at Southwest Minnesota State University, said the 4 point slide in Walz's overall approval rating isn't too alarming for a second-term governor. But he said Walz should be aware of the perils of seeking a third consecutive term. Rudy Perpich was the only Minnesota governor in recent history to run for a third consecutive term in 1990, and he lost. Minnesotans tend to be skeptical voters, Sturrock said, and they could want change after eight years of Walz. Sturrock said Walz's approval rating in the suburbs outside Hennepin and Ramsey counties should be of particular concern as he weighs running for a third term. "Approval rating in the outer suburbs, or the collar counties, should concern them," he said. "The suburbs are where statewide elections are won or lost in Minnesota." Mason-Dixon Polling and Strategy Inc. interviewed 800 Minnesota registered voters between June 16 and June 18, 2025. Findings from questions about Gov. Tim Walz are below. Totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Details about how the poll was conducted, the demographics of the 800 respondents and a map of the Minnesota regions used in this poll can be found at
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A look at how Trump's big bill could change the US immigration system
President Donald Trump's spending cuts and border security package would inject roughly $150 billion into his mass deportation agenda over the next four years, funding everything from an extension of the United States' southern border wall to detention centers to thousands of additional law enforcement staff. The current annual budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the government's primary department for immigration enforcement, is around $10 billion. If the Republican president's big bill passes in Congress, the immense cash infusion could reshape America's immigration system by expanding the law enforcement and detention network while increasing costs to legally immigrate to the U.S. The Senate is debating its own version of the bill, which largely aligns with the House's approach when it comes to these issues. In recent days, Republicans have focused on sometimes-violent protests against Trump's immigration crackdown to press for quick passage over Democratic opposition. That's what happened earlier in June when protests triggered unrest in parts of Los Angeles. 'The lawlessness happening in LA is ANOTHER reason why we need to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill IMMEDIATELY,' House Speaker Mike Johnson wrote on X. 'It provides the ESSENTIAL funding needed to secure our nation's borders.' Plenty, though, remains unclear about the legislation. 'One thing about this bill, these sections are super vague,' said Adam Isacson, a researcher with the Washington-based human rights advocacy organization WOLA, including multibillion-dollar expenditures sometimes explained in just a few vague lines. 'There's no real specificity in the bill about how it's going to be spent.' Here's a look at some key immigration sections of the 1,000-page bill, as approved by the House, and what it could mean for the U.S. government's posture on immigration: PROJECT: The wall WHAT THE BILL SAYS: The bill sets aside $46.5 billion for what the House Homeland Security Committee calls an 'integrated border barrier system,' including fencing, water barriers, law enforcement access roads and technology like movement sensors. The funding would complete 701 miles (1,128 kilometers) of primary walls and 900 miles (1,448 kilometers) of river barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border, according to the committee. It is the bill's largest expenditure. 'Any lawmaker who claims to care about border security will need to put their money where their mouth is and work to advance these recommendations,' said the committee's chairman, Republican Rep. Mark Green of Tennessee. THE IMPACT: Building the wall has long been one of Trump's signature promises, but its impacts beyond political symbolism are unclear. Illegal border crossings have plunged since Trump took office in January amid a string of orders on immigration, including the suspension of the asylum system. Simply ending asylum meant tens of thousands of people who would've surrendered to law enforcement instead of trying to avoid capture didn't even attempt to cross. Plus, the effectiveness of border walls is hotly debated, even in populated areas where barriers tend to be heavily reinforced. Human smugglers, often linked to drug cartels, have used tunnels, ladders and power tools to cross walls. But, experts note that though illegal crossings are down now, that can change rapidly. PROJECT: Detention facilities and staff WHAT THE BILL SAYS: The bill, which top White House aide and immigration hawk Stephen Miller has called 'the most essential piece of legislation currently under consideration in the entire Western World,' sets aside $45 billion to expand the network of immigrant detention facilities for adult migrants and families. The standards in adult facilities, the bill notes, would be set at 'the sole discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security.' More than $12 billion was also requested for 18,000 new ICE and Border Patrol personnel. THE IMPACT: ICE has said it wants to increase its current detention capacity from about 41,000 people to 100,000. It's part of what ICE's acting director, Todd Lyons, has suggested is a deportation system that could function 'like Amazon, trying to get your product delivered in 24 hours.' ICE currently has about 6,000 deportation officers, a number that's been stagnant for years. While expanding staff and detention centers would make it easier for the administration to increase deportations, even the tens of billions of dollars the bill requests may not be enough to meet Trump's goals. Miller has said ICE should be making 3,000 arrests per day of people in the country illegally. That's a vast increase over the roughly 650 arrested a day in the first five months of Trump's second term. But the plans are a boon to America's private prison industry, with stock prices for the two dominant companies, Geo Group Inc. and CoreCivic, up more than 50% since Trump's election. PROJECT: Immigration courts WHAT THE BILL SAYS: The legislation sets aside $1.25 billion for the immigration court system, with funds to hire more immigration judges and support staff and to expand courtroom capacity. The courts' annual budget currently stands at roughly $850 million. THE IMPACT: The immigration court system, which has roughly 700 judges, has struggled for years with chronic understaffing and a backlog that has reached more than 3.6 million cases. Judges typically take more than five years to make decisions. It's a chaotic system, with overworked judges, a shortage of translators and immigrants who often don't have lawyers. The chaos has grown in recent weeks, with immigration courts seeing a spike in arrests outside courtrooms as agents wait to detain immigrants attending routine hearings. The arrests have spread fed confusion and fear, especially among asylum-seekers, who are accustomed to remaining free while their cases plod their way through the system. The proposed funding would be "a significant increase, and from an institutional perspective it's urgently needed money,' said Greg Chen, director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. But he also believes the rising numbers of courthouse arrests reflect an administration looking for ways to bypass immigration courts. PROJECT: Immigration fees WHAT THE BILL SAYS: The bill overhauls the system of immigration costs, with dramatic increases and new fees imposed for once-free services. Applying for asylum, which has long been free, will now cost $1,000, with asylum-seekers paying another $550 for employment applications. Among other fee increases, appealing an immigration judge decision jumps from $110 to $900 and applying for temporary protected status, which allows people from certain countries facing civil unrest or natural disasters to stay temporarily in the U.S., goes from $50 to $500. THE IMPACT: For wealthier immigrants, the new fees will be an inconvenience. But for the vast majority of people even a few hundred dollars could be enough to make them change their plans.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
US-Iran crisis: what we know so far
US president Donald Trump has brought up the possibility of regime change in following US military strikes against three of its key nuclear enrichment sites over the weekend, even as top members of his administration insisted the US was not seeking to topple the Iranian leadership. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Trump wrote in a post on his social media platform Truth Social. Vice-president JD Vance had insisted the US was 'not at war with Iran, we're at war with Iran's nuclear programme' while US secretary of state Marco Rubio said that that the US was 'not looking for war in Iran'. The US state department has issued a 'worldwide caution' for Americans, saying the conflict between Israel and Iran could put those travelling or living abroad at an increased security risk. Related: How the carefully planned US bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities unfolded World leaders are now awaiting Iran's response to the US attacks. Iran's president, Masoud Pezeshkian, told France's Emmanuel Macron: 'The Americans must receive a response to their aggression.' Speaking in Istanbul, Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araqchi said his country would consider all possible responses. 'The US showed they have no respect for international law. They only understand the language of threat and force,' he said. He later flew to Moscow to discuss 'common threats' with President Vladimir Putin on Monday. Iran's parliament has reportedly approved the closing of the key strait of Hormuz shipping lane. Reuters reported Iran's supreme national security council will make the final decision on the move, which could hamstring global trade by shutting the narrow passage between Iran and Oman. US secretary of state Marco Rubio urged China to advise Tehran against closing the vital trade route, telling Fox News: 'I encourage the Chinese government in Beijing to call them about that, because they heavily depend on the strait of Hormuz for their oil. If they do that, it will be another terrible mistake.' Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said is very close to meeting its goals in Iran of removing the threats of ballistic missiles and the nuclear programme. Speaking to Israeli reporters, he said: 'We won't pursue our actions beyond what is needed to achieve them, but we also won't finish too soon. When the objectives are achieved, then the operation is complete and the fighting will stop.' A social media account associated with Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, later said Israel has made a 'grave mistake' and 'must be punished and is being punished'. The UK, France and Germany released a joint statement after the US strikes, calling upon to engage in negotiations leading to agreement that addresses all concerns associated with its nuclear program. The three countries also urged Iran 'not to take any further action that could destabilise the region', adding: 'We have consistently been clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and can no longer pose a threat to regional security.' Iran's health ministry said the US strikes had wounded an unspecified number of people but that none 'showed any signs of radioactive contamination'. 'For years, the ministry of health has set up nuclear emergency units in the nearest medical facilities to nuclear sites,' ministry spokesperson Hossein Kermanpour said on X. Israel said its fighter jets had struck 'dozens' of targets across Iran on Sunday, including a long-range missile site in Yazd in the centre of the country for the first time, Agence France Presse reported. A military statement said that 'approximately 30 IAF [air force] fighter jets struck dozens of military targets throughout Iran' – including 'the 'Imam Hussein' strategic missile command center in the Yazd area, where long-range Khorramshahr missiles were stored'. US secretary of state Marco Rubio said that 'there are no planned military operations right now against .' In a new interview with CBS, Rubio added that 'no one will know for days' whether Iran had moved some of its nuclear materials prior to the strikes. Pete Hegseth, the US secretary of defence, said the impact of the airstrikes was still being assessed, but that the bombing had hit the areas that had been identified in the planning of the operation. Hegseth said: 'The battle damage assessment is ongoing, but our initial assessment as the chairman said is that all of our precision munitions struck where we wanted them to strike, and had the desired effect.'