Massachusetts expands Gay Marriage
Posted on September 29, 2006
Coss Posted from Yet Another Conservative Right Wing Blog: A Massachusetts activist judge has taken it upon himself to expand Massachusetts legalization of gay Marriage beyond state borders. The following is from the Boston Globe:
A Superior Court judge ruled Friday that same-sex couples from Rhode Island have the right to marry in Massachusetts, finding that Rhode Island laws do not expressly prohibit gay marriage.
Wendy Becker and Mary Norton of Providence, R.I., argued that a 1913 law that forbids out-of-state residents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would not be permitted in their home state did not apply to them because Rhode Island does not specifically ban gay marriage.
[…]
After Massachusetts became the first state in the country to legalize gay marriage in 2004, couples from many other states began lining up to get marriage licenses here. But Gov. Mitt Romney directed municipal clerks not to give licenses to out-of-state couples, citing the 1913 law.
Eight out-of-state couples challenged the law. In March, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that Massachusetts could use the 1913 law to bar gay couples from Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont from marrying here. But the court said the law was unclear in New York and Rhode Island, and sent that part of the case back to a lower court for clarification.
Several questions come to mind, first and foremost being, with a lack of any Federal guidance, how do states, such as RI, who do not have specific provisions against Gay marriage recognize these couples? Also, if Road Island has no law against Gay marriage – why drag this through the court in Massachusetts, just get married in Road Island?
The answer to the first question would need a legal opinion, and I bet it will be complicated and doubtlessly lead to other lawsuits in other states with organizations like the ACLU and Lambda leading the charge.
The answer the second seems frightfully clear. The agenda here was much less about getting these two lesbians married, and much more about expanding the already gaping wound of Massachusetts same sex marriage provisions. This is the next logical step in forcing the national recognition of same sex marriage in providing a state where people can go to get married if they are in a state that is not among the 38 states specifically banning the practice.
The funny thing is, the ACLU knew this was coming. See the attached from the ACLU website:
If we don’t live in Massachusetts can we still get married there?
Maybe. Massachusetts has an old law suggesting that out of state couples who can’t marry in their home state can’t marry in Massachusetts either. Yet since Massachusetts’s highest court has ruled that it’s illegal to discriminate against same-sex couples who want to marry, this law may not be enforceable. This will take some time to resolve. The governor of Massachusetts, who has been very resistant to the court’s decision to stop excluding same-sex couples from marriage, has told clerks statewide that they cannot grant marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. Some clerks have resisted this order, and the governor’s office may end up declaring out-of-state couples’ licenses invalid. We’re monitoring the situation closely as it continues to unfold. Check back here for updates.
That was almost prophetic – and who says the ACLU doesn’t have an agenda? The ACLU has been one of the most vehement supporters of same sex marriage; it only seems odd that they where mostly silent on this current ruling.
The next logical step, now that a shoehorn has been pried into the 1913 law in Massachusetts that would have stopped out of state, gay couples from getting married in the state, is to widen the decision to include any couple regardless of home state or that states stance on same sex marriage.
Then I would not want to live in Massachusetts as they provide a safe haven for same sex marriage across all 50 states.
The next step would be to do similar things in other states that may be sympathetic to same sex marriage. From there it is anyone’s guess.
Regardless of the all of this, I still do not believe the Federal Marriage Amendment is the right way to go. Marriage laws, impacting only that state, belong in the state and should represent the position of the majority.
With that said, we cannot let states make decisions which so blatantly impact other states. Massachusetts have effectively fostered a default position of supporting same sex marriage on the 11 other states, like Road Island, which have no law restricting it.
Perhaps this is where the Federal Government, it its traditional roll as mediator between the states, comes in.
Click here to find out where you state stands on Gay Marriage.
Click here for a history of the Gay Marriage battle in Massachusetts.
» Filed Under ACLU, Homosexual Agenda
Trackback URL
Comments
8 Responses to “Massachusetts expands Gay Marriage”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
I don’t see how this is an example of judicial activism. I would have to see the exact wording of the 1913 law to be sure, but this seems like a pretty literal interpretation. The executive branch of certain states may have traditionally denied same-sex marriage applications, but this is of only minimal legal importance since those states lack legal justification for denying those applications.
I don’t think it was that insightful. Anyone with knowledge of the 1913 law could see that it was open to interpretation. It was only a matter of time before someone asked a court for clarification.
It’s refreshing to hear that. The federal government is ridiculously powerful these days. There’s no point in transferring even more power to it when the states can easily handle this one on their own.
I don’t see how it’s such a problem. If a state doesn’t want its same-sex residents married in MA, all they have to do is pass a law clarifying their position. If MA doesn’t want same-sex residents of other states flocking to their state, all they have to do is reverse the wording of the 1913 law.
So yeah, this impacts multiple states, but each state has a very simple course to undo any “damage”.
A Massachusetts judge has no jurisdiction over Rhode Island law so they are play a came here hoping to get another state to comply. The problem here is that the whole are has a liberal/libertarian political bias and contempt for the rule of law.
Jeff,
An activist judge legislates from the bench and so as long as a judge intentionally changes the intent of the law they are legislating from the bench. Most states are based on common law which specifies that marriage is between a man and woman.
I believe there is only one exception but I can not remember which.
Nor did he attempt to exercise any jurisdiction over Rhode Island. As far as I can tell, this ruling does not legalize gay marriage within Rhode Island.
That’s a very strong statement. Especially since liberals and libertarians have very little in common.
I agree with that definition.
That’s an interesting point. It may not be relevant though; We’d need to see the 1913 law and the actual ruling before we can be sure of anything.
Jeff,
Both liberals and libertarians are cultural liberals. They do disagree on the ecomomics which brings them into conflict.
My point is if marriage is not legal in Rhode Island then the judgment is flawed. It is at best premature as the Massachusetts judge should have made waited until Rhode Island made the point of law clear if it is unclear in the first place.
If the summary of the 1913 Massachusetts law is correct then Rhode Island law also applies. Common law holds precedent when the a legal term is undefined.
If, by this, you mean that they believe government shouldn’t attempt to dictate morality, then I suppose you’re right; they do have some common ground.
No doubt. However, it is the Superior Court judge’s opinion that that marriage would be legal in Rhode Island. I would assume he’s a pretty well informed man, but if you disagree with him, we need to examine his ruling in detail before we can make any claims that he’s wrong.
This seems logical, but the legal system just doesn’t work like that. He can’t sit around waiting for the legislature to make changes. He simply has to interpretate the statutes as they are.
If the executive branch of MA disagrees with him, they can appeal his ruling to SCOMA. If the legislative branch of MA disagrees with him, they can pass clarifying legislation. If the legislative branch of RI disagrees with him, they can also pass clarifyin legislation.
That’s a big “if”. We’ll need to find the answer before we can proceed much further.
I heard more about the ruling. Rhode Island law does state that the marriage they recognize occurs between a bride and a groom. The judge pulled a lawyer trick and said it does not specifically say marriage can not occur between members of the same sex. That is of course an absurdity as it also does not say that marriage can not occur between a woman and a dog or a man and a car. Nerveless only marriage between a man and a women is recognized in Rhode Island.
Judges do not have to decide a case as they can simply say that the decision such as interpreting Rhode Island law is out of their jurisdiction and direct the couple to get a ruling in Rhode Island first. The Supreme Court often refers a case back to a lower court to have them clarify a point of law. That would of been sensible if the question was in doubt but it was not so he made his decision for political reasons. That is how the game is played.
Ok, but you need to cite a source if the discussion is to progress.
Cases will regularly be appealed/referred up/down the chain, but I’ve never heard of one moving laterally.