The Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts do not apply! (Gay Marriage Ruling) - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-30-2006, 03:10 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:02 PM
The Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts do not apply! (Gay Marriage Ruling)

[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?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-30-2006, 03:18 PM   #2
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 11:02 PM
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!
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-30-2006, 03:22 PM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:02 PM
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.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-30-2006, 03:25 PM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:02 PM
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.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-30-2006, 03:44 PM   #5
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 11:02 PM
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.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-30-2006, 10:49 PM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:02 PM
Now I am confused
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-31-2006, 08:43 AM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 11:02 PM
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."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 03-31-2006, 10:51 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:02 PM
I'd like to see the basis used to challenge the 1913 law in this case.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com