SJC upholds law barring out-of-state gay couples from marriage

alliancedefensefund.org ^ | Alliance Defense Fund update quoting Boston Globe | Jonathan Saltzman

[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/

[b4its2late]

Good.

[newzjunkey]

Seems a reasonable determination under MA state law.

[Southack]

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?

[FourtySeven]

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.

[ReyDM]

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.

[CellPhoneSurfer]

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.

[brivette]

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.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

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.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

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

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

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

State courts have no standing in this issue...

[Southack]

"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.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

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!

[Southack]

"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.

[Road Warrior ‘04]

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.