Massachusetts bars same-sex marriage for nonresidents . . .

[TaleWgnDg]

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court bars same-sex marriage for non-residents

Jeannie Shawl, Jurist News, at 10:17 AM ET, Thursday, March 30, 2006, edited on 12:22 PM ET

(JURIST NEWS) AP is reporting that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (official website) ruled Thursday (March 30, 2006) that same-sex couples from outside of Massachusetts cannot marry in the state. Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage (JURIST news archive) with the state high court's 2003 decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (text; JURIST report).

At issue in the current case (JURIST report) was whether a 1913 law (text), which prohibits out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if their home states do not recognize the union, comports with the Massachusetts constitution (text). Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has used the law, which had otherwise been rarely invoked, to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples from nearby states. AP has more.

10:44 AM ET - Read the court's decision (.pdf format, AdobeReader(R) required) in Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health.

. . . more at . . . http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/03/breaking-news-massachusetts-high-court.php

(Massachusetts Supreme Judicial) Court: Gays Can't Come to Massachusetts to Marry

BOSTON - (AP) Same-sex couples from states where gay marriage is banned cannot legally marry in Massachusetts, the state's highest court ruled Thursday.

The Supreme Judicial Court, which three years ago made Massachusetts the first state to legalize gay marriage, upheld a 1913 state law that forbids nonresidents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state.

"The laws of this commonwealth have not endowed non-residents with an unfettered right to marry," the court wrote in its 38-page opinion. "Only non-resident 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."

Eight gay couples from surrounding states had challenged the law in a case watched closely across the country.

In its ruling, the court sent the cases involving couples from Rhode Island and New York back to a lower court, saying it was unclear whether same-sex marriage is prohibited in those states.

Gov. Mitt Romney applauded the ruling.

. . . more at . . . http://yurl.com/hvtof

Please see: DU LBN thread at . . . http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2197741

[HEyHEY]

1. SO much for free enterprise and civil rights

[TaleWgnDg]

5. This is only a temporary stop on the road to

same-sex marriage across America. The law works very slowly. One step forward, two back, two forward, and on and on. Very slowyly, indeed. The only exception has been the same-sex marriage recognition in Massachsetts, as well as civil unions in some other states. That was quick as law goes, that is. It hasn't been so very long ago that gay ppl finally came out into the sunshine, overall. Some can shout about it and feel comfortable, others not. As for the entire picture, it took American slavery more than 350 years, from 1619 to the mid-twentieth century, to obtain full benefit of constitutional law! Women are still working at it. There's no constitutional guarantee for women, only for the vote since 1920. GLBT rights are but one fight for individual constitutional rights across America.

[Siyahamba]

7. I sure hope so.

The marriage discrimination amendments of 2004 felt like a huge shove down the stairs.

[Warpy]

2. They never barred it for non residents of different races during

the Jim Crow days. This is a very bad decision and quite transparent.

[TaleWgnDg]

6. This case should never have been brought into court . . .

.
This case should never have been brought into court . . . it should not have been litigated at this time in a cesspool of religious rightwingnuts in power and making hay. To litigate is a set-up of be damned if it rules for you and be damned if it rules against you, for both may drive the ire of backlash in States enacting laws against same-sex marriage and worse (as has been the case, i.e., the "worse" factor). But then, again, was it humanly possible to stop out-of-state gay couples from running into our city and town halls across the Bay State to "license up?" No. It was that damn wall of enforcing an old unenforced state statute that brought em into court. Mitt Romney did it. Mitt demanded that cities and towns conform to that 1913 law. And, he loved it too. Still does. He's dancing as I type this.

However, all that whining being said, it is better to have this outcome of prohibition that will stop the flood-gates of out-of-staters coming to Massachusetts to be married then demanding the marriage contract enforcement upon their own home state which in turn would mean more constitutional state amendments, more outcries for a federal amendment. Geezuz. This ruling gives it all a rest. Overall, that is. By degrees. It will enhance the possibility of states passing laws to prohibit gays from marrying so's to stop them from coming to Massachusetts. But to lesser degrees than if the SJC tossed that 1913 law. There's the damned if the SJC rules against you part but maybe not as pronounced as the damned if the SJC rules in your favor. Bad law either way. However, with today's SJC ruling, it may feign off a federal amendment to greater degrees as well as not fill the coffers of the money-changers who rant on and on about the immoralities of gay conduct, the festering pools of their children, etc.

All in all, same-sex marriage is inevitable. It's coming. Coming slowly as is the way in law. The only remaining issue will be, and is, time. How long will it take. During my lifetime? Yours? My kids?

[BOSSHOG]

3. Does the same ban apply for non-resident straights?

If not, start chucking that tea in the harbor. My wife and I, both non residents of California, were married in that state in 1974. Massachusetts is wrong.

[TaleWgnDg]

4. The 1913 law on its face is silent . . .

.

The 1913 law on its face is silent but it applies uniformly to pink people, gay people, green people, straight people, minors, folks who cannot marry because they are too closely related, etc. That is, whatever the domicile (home state) says cannot marry, cannot marry in Massachusetts u/ this 1913 Massachusetts law.

BTW, I believe that this entire scenario will become a federal challenge and be brought all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. There's so many constitutional challenges to this SJC ruling that it should, and will be, challenged. SCOTUS should rule this 1913 state law unconstitutional as to our federal constitution. That is, if SCOTUS doesn't have a drastic change of face, demeanor, and reasonableness. Even at that, time is on the side of same-sex marriage. Time will be the only issue however much time it takes.

[justin899]

8. The only thing I can think of that would impact straight couples

would be something like marrying first cousins or something. As I recall there is something like 22 states where that is legal but it is illegal in all of the others. Otherwise this probably has little impace (as you said) on straight couples.

But I have a question. Rather than trying to appeal this all the way to the current (right-wing extremist) U.S. Supreme Court wouldn't it be easier just to bring pressure on law makers to repeal this antiquated law? I can't imagine there is much public support for such a law considering the recent polls I've seen where the majority of MA residents support same-sex marriage equality.

[TaleWgnDg]

9. Yup. You're correct. But if I were a state legislator, I'd drag my

heels and say "yes, sure I will" but then delay and delay. Why? Because I'd still want to wait it out until the lay of the land, if you will, across America doesn't react to Massachusetts being the gateway -- the slippery slope, if you will -- to gay marriage for all of America. I mean, an out of state gay couple could be married in the Bay State then go home to force their home state to enforce their gay marriage . . . or litigate it to do so. America, under these uber-rightwinger religion-into-law power trippers, would have a field day out of it. More campaign slogans, more smear, more monies in their campaign coffers, and more elected official spouting off in immoralities bashing gays and their kids plus all the other trash these rightwingnuts love in governance. Why give them the power?

No. I'd want to wait it out. Wait out this crazy damn off-the-wall rightwing twist in American politics. Wait out this cycle like dirty laundry.

[One_Life_To_Give]

10. This might be a good thing

With all the Homophobia in Red State Land.
Had this passed there could have been a huge backlash.

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. Bigotry is never a good thing

The 1913 law was enacted only to appease racists. It was supported only to appease homophobes.

[TaleWgnDg]

12. Ooops, I goofed . . .

.
Ooops, I goofed . . .

In my haste to post this thread, I failed to type out the entire url of the second newspaper article in the OP . . . the second newspaper article is "(Massachusetts Supreme Judicial) Court: Gays Can't Come to Massachusetts to Marry, (AP) by JAY LINDSAY."

The correct url is: http://tinyurl.com/hvtof (tinyurl.com url instead of the AP article url was used bc the AP's url was too damn long. DU software *hates* long urls and spits em out!)

[TaleWgnDg]

13. In my (above) OP . . . I hyperlinked to a G.L.A.D. website . . .

.

In my (above) OP I hyperlinked to a G.L.A.D. website which brings up a .pdf format of this Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case, Whiteacre etal v. Department of Public Health etal, __ Mass. __ (#SJC-094356, March 30, 2006); however, findlaw.com has a .hmtl format version of the case at:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ma&vol=sjcslip/16042&invol=1
(Whiteacre etal v. Department of Public Health etal, hmtl format, ct's opinion and dissent, March 30, 2006)