Skip to comments.SJC upholds law barring out-of-state gay couples from marriage
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."
Cote-Whitacre v. Dept. of Public Health, No. SJC 09436 (Mass. March 30, 2006)
And now on to the Federal courts.
Possibly to become the Roe vs Wade of homos.
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
A surprisingly good decision from the SJC.
"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...
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.
"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.
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?
Good news. Now to have the Federal Court rule the same!!
It's those intolerant red states of Jesusland again!
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.
This decision must be heartbreaking for the f****p****s of American. What'll they do now?
It's the U.S. Constitution that has sat on the shelf unused for decades, IMHO.
"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.
Here's the other one (so far). Looks good to me.
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.
Can't the court just rule that homosexual "marriage" is absurd?