What are your thoughts on this?

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-16-2005
What are your thoughts on this?
7
Thu, 03-30-2006 - 10:43am

Court: Gays Can't Come to Mass. to Marry


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060330/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage





By JAY LINDSAY, Associated Press Writer


BOSTON - 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.


"We don't want Massachusetts to become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage," Romney said. "It's important that other states have the right to make their own determination of marriage and not follow the wrong course that our Supreme Judicial Court put us on."


One plaintiff, Mark Pearsall, called Thursday's ruling "illogical."


"It's a statement that's not really based around any sense of humanity, but really on a sense of politics, which is really not a fair way to treat people. It's a hurtful thing," said Pearsall, of Lebanon, Conn., who traded vows with Paul Trubey in Worcester in 2004.


In oral arguments before the high court in October, a lawyer for the couples argued that the 1913 law had been unused for decades, until it was "dusted off" by Romney in an attempt to discriminate against same-sex couples.


Romney ordered city and town clerks to enforce that law after the first same-sex marriages were performed in Massachusetts in May 2004.


Attorneys for the state argued that Massachusetts risked a backlash if it ignored the laws of other states by letting same-sex couples marry here when their own states prohibited such unions.


More than 6,000 gay couples have tied the knot in Massachusetts since the court ruled in 2003 that the state Constitution gives same-sex couples the same right to marry as heterosexual couples.



Photobucket


iVillage Member
Registered: 02-01-2005
Thu, 03-30-2006 - 6:00pm

I guess I understand the point about them not wanting "to become the Las Vegas of same sex marriages", but on the other hand what harm is it really doing?

 *Hugs ~  Caly

aka  

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2004
Thu, 03-30-2006 - 7:05pm

Even thought Delaware has civil unions, I want my marriage to my honey bunny to be recognized in any state of the union. If I had to move to where my honey bunny lives at, then I would move. She wouldn't have to move at all. I wouldn't want to be married in my home state anyway.

And because of the unbelieveable members of my church family, I wouldn't get married in my place of worship anyway. I would get married in a completely different setting and I would only invite certain member of my church family. But when I do become one with my honey bunny, it will not be a media spectacle. It will be treated with the respect it deserves.

Thanks and hugs!

Sebastian.

 


Hugs,


Sebastian


 


http://www.facebook.com/sebastianbruce

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2004
Thu, 03-30-2006 - 10:46pm

I understand why they ruled the way they did, I guess. They obviously don't want to encourage visitors to their state, that's the part I'm not sure I understand. I guess even if it means potential revenue for their businesses, they don't want us visiting them to get married. Whatever, their loss. If your marriage won't be recognized in the state you reside in - as far as legal issues are concerned - then why not just marry where you live?


If I ever remarry - it won't matter where it happens, as long as it's a place we chose together and are happy with. After all, every marriage should be about the two people getting married. It shouldn't be for insurance reasons, tax reasons, etc....although those perks would make things fair - it's not what the marriage should be based on.


Good post Ting, thanks!

Sandr

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-29-2003
Thu, 03-30-2006 - 11:58pm
Well... My feelings on it..and I live here in Mass.... I am happy it was passed here.. I think it should be passed everywhere...I can see why some

 C  >^. A .

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2003
Fri, 03-31-2006 - 2:37am

This doesn't surprise me a bit. I was curious about this 1913 law they're using as the basis of this decision. An article here;


http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/03/31/ag_sees_gay_marriage_limit/


spells it out more clearly as a law originally written to block interracial marriages. It seems rather suspicious that the article below didn't mention such a hugely discriminatory detail, don't you think? That law should have been struck from the books ages ago and not allowed to be recycled to keep rights from yet another group of people.


I'm a little fuzzy on details but here's what this looks like to me; The people of Mass have recognized gay marriage. The Republican governor and their supreme court don't like it. To keep their

 

Avatar for nursepam2000
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2003
Fri, 03-31-2006 - 9:10am

Great post Nony!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 03-31-2006 - 11:15am

I think it's a cop out. Every straight marriage is recognized in every other state.