Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SJC upholds law barring out-of-state gay couples from marriage
alliancedefensefund.org ^ | Alliance Defense Fund update quoting Boston Globe | Jonathan Saltzman

Posted on 03/30/2006 8:18:57 AM PST by dukeman

In an eagerly awaited landmark decision, the state's highest court ruled today that Governor Mitt Romney and Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly had the authority to invoke a 1913 state law that Massachusetts used to block out-of-state gay couples from marrying here when same-sex marriage became legal in 2004.

The Supreme Judicial Court upheld the 1913 law when it was used to block same sex-couples from Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, because gay marriage is prohibited in those states.

The court, however, did not rule on the claims of the couples from New York and Rhode Island because state laws there are unclear about whether same-sex marriage is barred. The court sent the case back to Superior Court Judge Carol Ball, who upheld the 1913 law that was appealed, to determine on an "expedited basis" when same-sex marriage is legal in those two states.

The Supreme Judicial Court said the state did not overstep its bounds, though a lawyer for eight lesbian and gay couples from outside Massachusetts had argued in October that the officials had dusted off a 48-word law that had "sat on the shelf unused for decades" in a blatantly discriminatory and unconstitutional ploy.

The law, whose constitutionality was defended before the court by Reilly's attorneys, says Massachusetts cannot marry an out-of-state couple if their marriage would be void in their home state. Romney had said he did not want Massachusetts to become the "Las Vegas of same-sex marriage."

The Opinion:
Cote-Whitacre v. Dept. of Public Health, No. SJC 09436 (Mass. March 30, 2006)

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/Search/default.wl?RP=%2FWelcome%2FFrameless%2FSearch%2Ewl&n=1&ACTION=SEARCH&bhcp=1&bQlocfnd=True&CFID=0&DB=MA%2DORSLIP&Method=TNC&query=to%28allsct+allsctrs+allsctoj%29+&RLT=CLID%5FQRYRLT2569303&RLTDB=CLID%5FDB2569303&sp=MassOF%2D1001&ssl=n&strRecreate=no&sv=Split&RS=WEBL6.03&VR=2.0&SPa=MassOF-1001

SJC website:
http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: buttbuddies; court; deviancy; deviants; flamers; fudgeimportban; gay; gays; homos; homosexual; homosexualagenda; perversion; perverts; pudding; queers; romney; ruling; saladbarsoutlawed; samesexmarriage; sexualdeviancy; sjc; sodomites; taxachusetts; unnatural
Another sodomite loss.
1 posted on 03/30/2006 8:18:59 AM PST by dukeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dukeman
Another sodomite loss.

And now on to the Federal courts.

2 posted on 03/30/2006 8:23:24 AM PST by Gay State Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
And now on to the Federal courts.

Possibly to become the Roe vs Wade of homos.

3 posted on 03/30/2006 8:35:08 AM PST by shekkian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dukeman

I'm surprised, though they are probably just trying to cover themselves. In their view of our government, state supreme courts rule. So without those state courts giving them the go-ahead, they hesitate. It wouldn't surprise me if the NY and Rhode Island hesitations have more to do with court cases pending in those states. But I don't know. All I can say is that they took language common to all and redefined it according to their own desires in order to legalize gay marriage in their state. So it's not the wording of laws and constitutions that holds them back. It must be their mental submission to the ruling courts of those other states. Or they didn't figure they could get away with it at this time, given the fact that so many states have passed marriage amendments after their little amoral, power-grabbing stunt


4 posted on 03/30/2006 8:40:23 AM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dukeman

Ping.


5 posted on 03/30/2006 8:44:52 AM PST by Calusa (I believe above the storm, The smallest Prayer will still be heard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dukeman

A surprisingly good decision from the SJC.


6 posted on 03/30/2006 9:05:17 AM PST by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dukeman

"The Supreme Judicial Court upheld the 1913 law when it was used to block same sex-couples from Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, because gay marriage is prohibited in those states."

Them folks would have invoked the laws in effect when the pilgrims landed in Plymouth, if they could have gotten away with it...


7 posted on 03/30/2006 9:09:51 AM PST by Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dukeman
a 48-word law that had "sat on the shelf unused for decades"

Unused because it hadn't been needed. When courts change laws willy-nilly, it's nice to know that there's still some backup legislation out there. It's not like that law was being violated for the last 90 years and it wasn't enforced.

8 posted on 03/30/2006 9:14:47 AM PST by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin

"Them folks would have invoked the laws in effect when the pilgrims landed in Plymouth, if they could have gotten away with it..."

Thats a good thing, if it keeps the sodomites from infesting every state.


9 posted on 03/30/2006 9:21:42 AM PST by Beagle8U (John McCain, you treasonous bastard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dukeman

So does this mean the marriage of lesbian couple from FL, that filed suit in FL to make FL recognize their MA marriage, is now null-and-void?


10 posted on 03/30/2006 9:23:38 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

Good news. Now to have the Federal Court rule the same!!


11 posted on 03/30/2006 9:27:38 AM PST by pollywog (Psalm 121;1 I Lift my eyes to the hills from whence cometh my help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dukeman
state law that Massachusetts used ... to block same sex-couples from Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, because gay marriage is prohibited in those states.

It's those intolerant red states of Jesusland again!

12 posted on 03/30/2006 9:38:55 AM PST by Sloth (Archaeologists test for intelligent design all the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dukeman

a 48-word law that had "sat on the shelf unused for decades"

Not true. Massachusetts will not allow 14-year-old first cousins from Tennessee to marry because the marriage is not valid in their home state.

The Mass SJC is beginning to feel the heat from their last judicial fiat (gay marriage) and is waiting for things to settle down, which they will not. The Massachusetts judicial elite do not fully comprehend that the citizens are getting their news from sources other than the Boston Globe, and the heat is only going to be turned up.


13 posted on 03/30/2006 9:44:36 AM PST by Make It In Mass (Don't vote for unopposed candidates, it only encourages them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dukeman

This decision must be heartbreaking for the f****p****s of American. What'll they do now?


14 posted on 03/30/2006 9:46:15 AM PST by EndWelfareToday (Live free and keep what you earn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dukeman
a lawyer for eight lesbian and gay couples from outside Massachusetts had argued in October that the officials had dusted off a 48-word law that had "sat on the shelf unused for decades"....

It's the U.S. Constitution that has sat on the shelf unused for decades, IMHO.

15 posted on 03/30/2006 9:50:55 AM PST by Albion Wilde (Total healing for Gavin IJN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA

"So does this mean the marriage of lesbian couple from FL, that filed suit in FL to make FL recognize their MA marriage, is now null-and-void?"


No. This was a state court.


16 posted on 03/30/2006 9:56:53 AM PST by Preachin' (Enoch's testimony was that he pleased God: Why are we still here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DirtyHarryY2K; DBeers

Here's the other one (so far). Looks good to me.


17 posted on 03/30/2006 10:04:19 AM PST by little jeremiah (Tolerating evil IS evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AFA-Michigan; AggieCPA; Agitate; AliVeritas; AllTheRage; An American In Dairyland; Annie03; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping!

FReepmail if you want on/off the ping list.

Free Republic homosexual agenda keyword search

18 posted on 03/30/2006 10:11:49 AM PST by DirtyHarryY2K ("Ye shall know them by their fruits" ;-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Preachin'
No. This was a state court.

Yeah, they were from FL got "married" in MA. so their MA "marriage" is now null-and-void.

I think their court case got tossed out already.

19 posted on 03/30/2006 10:20:27 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dukeman

Can't the court just rule that homosexual "marriage" is absurd?


20 posted on 03/30/2006 10:47:16 AM PST by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dukeman

Good.


21 posted on 03/30/2006 10:53:58 AM PST by b4its2late (There are good terrorists.............. DEAD ONES.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: dukeman

Seems a reasonable determination under MA state law.


23 posted on 03/30/2006 12:41:38 PM PST by newzjunkey (All I need is a safe home and peace of mind. Why am I still in CA?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dukeman

This is a good state court ruling as far as that sort of thing goes, but I still don't see what business a state has marrying anyone, or determining who can be married or not.

Marriage is a religious ceremony, yes?!

Will the courts next be ruling on which baptisms and bar mitvahs are legal or not?

Isn't the government banned from regulating and engaging in religion/religious ceremonies?

Shouldn't we want government to get *out* of our churches?

24 posted on 03/30/2006 12:53:50 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Isn't the government banned from regulating and engaging in religion/religious ceremonies?

I think the problem stems from the fact that married couples can enjoy particular legal protections that singles or unmarried couples cannot. Thus, if the certification of marriage would be removed from governmental regulation, then there would be no legal standing, for example, for a husband to visit his wife in the hospital as a next of kin. Or even to make medical decisions for her should she be incapacitated.

That's my (admittedly) uninformed legal opinion, so I could be wrong.

25 posted on 03/30/2006 1:47:32 PM PST by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dukeman
This is a pleasant surprise, and no doubt a big setback for the homo agenda.

One quote struck me as a bit odd:

The court, however, did not rule on the claims of the couples from New York and Rhode Island because state laws there are unclear about whether same-sex marriage is barred. The court sent the case back to Superior Court Judge Carol Ball, who upheld the 1913 law that was appealed, to determine on an "expedited basis" when same-sex marriage is legal in those two states.

My understanding of the legal situation in New York is that the traditional def. of marriage as one man/ one woman has been upheld by the State Attorney General, as well as two levels of appelate courts. There may be an appeal pending with the highest or "supreme" level of the NY judiciary, but as they have not issued any ruling, I don't see how the Mass SC could claim that NY law is "unclear". Courts are supposed to interpret the laws as they are right now, not as they may someday be or wish them to be.

Also, IANAL but I don't see how a Mass. Superior Court judge has any jurisdiction or ability to rule over legal issues in another State. I smell a whiff of judicial overreach here.

26 posted on 03/30/2006 2:24:15 PM PST by ReyDM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven; Southack
The arguments about visitation rights and medical decisions is what gay couples are most adamant about in their relationships and why they should be legally recognized.

I agree with Southack, keep the government out of religious regulation. There were no Marriage "licenses" before the 1950's. If two people want to be married, let them find a church that will marry them. If no one outside of their particular church believes their marriage is "real" so be it. As for the legal rights, go to your local courthouse and enter into a "civil union" that deals with such legal concerns.

Both would be separate issues. Any two people could enter into a civil union for the visitation/medical decision rights without being married. And any two people, assuming they find a church that will marry them, could be married without entering into a civil union.

This would apply to both homosexual and heterosexual couples. This guarantees equal freedom of religion (protecting the churches from state interference) and equal legal rights.

27 posted on 03/30/2006 2:34:41 PM PST by CellPhoneSurfer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CellPhoneSurfer

This is a bogus treatment of an important civil issue. Your solution won't work. It fails to address the important role marriage plays in modern life.


28 posted on 03/30/2006 4:52:28 PM PST by brivette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven; Southack
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.
“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices...”

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).

[See also: Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).]

Congress, state legislatures and public referenda have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.

Marriage is a religious “rite,” not a civil “right;” a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.

All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender; therefore, Fourteenth Amendment “equal protection” argument about "privileges and immunities" for homosexual marriage is invalid.

Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. Nothing that requires a license is a right.

Homosexual monogamy advocates are a cult of perversion seeking ceremonious sanctification for voluntary deviancy with anatomical function and are desperately pursuing esoteric absolution to justify their guilt-ridden egos. This has no secular standard; it is an idolatrous fetish.

29 posted on 03/30/2006 5:42:34 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: brivette; CellPhoneSurfer

I completey gut the homosexual marriage issue in #29 with a Supreme Court decision that still holds today...


30 posted on 03/30/2006 5:46:37 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ReyDM

None of the courts are abiding by two USSC cases I cite in #29...

State courts have no standing in this issue...


31 posted on 03/30/2006 5:54:23 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
"Homosexual monogamy advocates are a cult of perversion seeking ceremonious sanctification for voluntary deviancy with anatomical function and are desperately pursuing esoteric absolution to justify their guilt-ridden egos. This has no secular standard; it is an idolatrous fetish."

That's not really my focus or point.

I'm looking at a larger picture. I don't like *government* performing religious rites (e.g. baptism, bar mitzvahs, marriages, etc.).

I'm uncomfortable with government involvement in church ceremonies, church rites, religious doctrine, etc.

I should be able to argue my religious preferences inside my church. I should not have to make those arguments to my government for public policy.

I don't even want government passing a "blue law" that says that churches or businesses can't be open on Sunday.

Basically, I want government out of religion.

Government itself shouldn't "sanctify" or justify or approve or ban any aspect of any religious ceremony/rite...although I can accept government banning certain practices such as ritual human sacrifice for Satanists.

But more realistically, government should be blind to religious status. Government shouldn't ask me if I'm circumcized and government shouldn't ask me if I'm baptized or married.

Government should have no opinion on such things. Those are the domain of religion.

32 posted on 03/30/2006 5:55:25 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Southack
I'm uncomfortable with government involvement in church ceremonies, church rites, religious doctrine, etc.

They take the 501c tax-exempt corporation status... you play, you pay...

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Government itself shouldn't "sanctify" or justify or approve or ban any aspect of any religious ceremony/rite..

You want the tax deduction? You have the marriage certificate?

I don't want the government to sanctify perversion.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Screw religion, I want the government out of my wallet...

I am sick and tired of every leftist pervert group out there using the government to make me some kind of charity - - and now they want to use the mantle of religion to do it??? I DON'T effing THINK SO!

33 posted on 03/30/2006 6:40:00 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
"I don't want the government to sanctify perversion."

Nor do I. Our government shouldn't marry anyone. Our government shouldn't baptize anyone. It shouldn't sanction bar mitzvahs.

Government should not be in the religious business.

34 posted on 03/30/2006 7:18:03 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: dukeman
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the gay marriage question going to be put to the voters of Mass. this November? The vote could make the Supreme Court decision moot.
35 posted on 03/31/2006 4:02:01 AM PST by Bushbacker1 (Kill 'em til they're dead! Then, kill 'em again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson