The Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts do not apply! (Gay Marriage Ruling)

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
[Q]BOSTON, March 30 — Massachusetts's highest court ruled today that same-sex couples who live in other states cannot get married in Massachusetts unless gay marriage is legal in their home states.[/Q]


Does this apply to all laws?
 
actually, this is a good thing. sort of. here's why:

the original 1913 law was designed to uphold miscegenation laws (surprising? hardly, and once again, shows that anti-marriage equality folks are going to look like George Wallace in 20 years) so that a black-and-white couple couldn't get married in, say, Massachusetts and then take their marriage to Virginia and force VA to have to recognize it. it's also worth noting that Virginia views same-sex marriage the way they once viewed interracial marriage.

but i digress.

what is good about this law is that it removes the only possible non-bigoted argument in support of the Federal ban on marriage equality: that marriage should be left up to the states, and that one state shouldn't have to recognize marriages in other states, at least by law.

the stated point of this amendment wasn't about bigotry or hatred or religious fanatics looking for someone to feel superior than. no! not in the slightest! really, the amendment was supposed to be to stop some marriages from being "forced" onto other states. which seems fair. it's not right that highly diverse, cosmopolitan, educated states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, California, New York, etc., should "force" their laws on poor Utah or Mississippi.

MA has just ruled these marriages invalid out of state. there's nothing to get upset over! the debate is now over! the Republicans will withdraw the neauseating "Marriage Protection Amendment" from Congress! there's no need for it anymore!
 
I believe this depends on the residency requirements of each state. Nevada, once known as a mecca for divorce, shortened the residency requirement to a relatively short period of time, so people could qualify as residents of Nevada and get their divorces.

So, technically, to take advantage of Mass. laws regarding marriage, one must be a resident of Mass. Couples from other states would have to establish residency to take advantage of local laws.
 
The ruling only applies to non-Mass. residents seeking marriage in Mass.

Couples married in Mass. would have their marriages recognized in other states pursuant to Article 4 of the Constitution.
 
hmmm ... my understanding is that if Massachusetts courts belive that some states would recognize same-sex marriages, couples in those states may be able to go to Massachusetts to marry -- i.e., northeastern states, west coast states. also, if a couple validly married in Massachusetts moves to another state, the new state's courts will ultimately get to decide whether to recognize the marriage.
 
Well after all, we can't have MA becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage ~ Mitt

Viva Las Vegas, with Mitt in a white Elvis jumpsuit..

By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff | March 31, 2006

"The state's highest court ruled yesterday that Governor Mitt Romney and Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly had the authority to use a 1913 state law to block out-of-state gay couples from marrying here after same-sex marriage became legal in 2004.

The Supreme Judicial Court said the obscure law, which prohibits Massachusetts from marrying an out-of-state couple if the marriage would not be legal in their home state, passed constitutional muster and could be applied to five same-sex couples from Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, because gay marriage is expressly prohibited in those states.

The court, however, said state officials had applied the law too broadly when they refused to allow the marriage of three couples from New York and Rhode Island, because same-sex marriage is not explicitly prohibited in those states. The high court sent the case of those three couples back to Superior Court Judge Carol Ball, who upheld the 1913 law last year, to quickly determine whether same-sex marriage is prohibited in those states. No time frame was set.

''The laws of this Commonwealth have not endowed nonresidents with an unfettered right to marry," Justice Francis X. Spina wrote in his opinion. ''Only nonresident couples who come to Massachusetts to marry and intend to reside in this Commonwealth thereafter can be issued a marriage license without consideration of any impediments to marriage that existed in their former home states."
 
Back
Top Bottom