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

yahoo ^ | March 30, 2006 | JAY LINDSAY

[crushelits]

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.

[John Jorsett]

Sounds like they're upholding an old anti-miscegenation law. Ironic in the Worker's Paradise of Massachusettes.

[FormerLib]

I have to laugh when they think they score points by crying that such common sense statements are "hurtful" to the turd burglars.

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

"...and intend to reside in this commonwealth thereafter..."

There's the loophole that requires only a little lie.

[Mo1]

upheld a 1913 state law that forbids nonresidents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state.

So does this mean all the gays will be moving to Massachusetts now?

[RonF]

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.

I suppose that the concept that the court is supposed to rule according to the laws and not on how people may feel is beyond Mr. Pearsall. Laws come from politics, Mr. Pearsall. Perhaps you should try convincing the Massachusetts legislature to change the law if you want the law changed. Changing the law is not the role of the courts, although I concede that based on some of the previous actions of the Massachusetts Supreme Court you'd never know it.

[RonF]

That depends. How should a County clerk determine such intent? My criteria would be to have the happy couple show me evidence of at least one of them having an establised residence in Massachusetts already. If they decide to move out afterwards, there's nothing the Clerk can do about that. I'm surprised that some such couple hasn't moved out of Massachusetts already and demanded that their legal status be recognized in some other state.

[skinkinthegrass]

maybe Bwarney Fwanks (Gay-MA), can take up polygamy (multi-marriage spouses) now....
and show MA how is should be done.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"Same-sex couples from states where gay marriage is banned cannot legally marry in Massachusetts, the state's highest court ruled Thursday."

You mean liberals aren't the party of inclusiveness? Gays in Mass can marry, but if you are not from Mass, stay out.

[detsaoT]

With respect to the fair lady's t-shirt,

"No, you're certainly not."

;)

[detsaoT]

So does this mean all the gays will be moving to Massachusetts now?

One can only hope... ;)

[skinkinthegrass]

You mean liberals aren't the party of inclusiveness?

Well, No....just ask any practicing Christians and/or a U.S. Constitution/Freedom Loving populace.

[reagandemocrat]

From dirtboy on another thread:

Why do you think this was even brought before the courts in the first place? Methinks the average county clerk is aware of any residency requirements, and there were none. But the Mass Supreme Court, having first written new law in allowing gay marriage, now nullifies existing law to contain the backlash from an influx of out-of-state gays to marry there. But if gay marriage is legal as deemed by the court, there are no residency restrictions to get a license.

Don't get me wrong - I am opposed to gay marriage. I am just pointing this out as yet another example of the Mass Supreme Court legislating from the bench.


25 posted on 03/30/2006 9:36:50 AM PST by dirtboy (Tagline under contruction. Fines doubled.)

[conservative blonde]

At last some commonsense from Massachusetts' Court.

[GretchenM]

bttt

[FormerLib]

Makes me a little worried, actually. Maybe I need to swing by one of those Santeria places in Adams-Morgan and buy some candles or something.

[billbears]

No it's not. What it does is force the issue in the surrounding states. The Massachusetts' court in effect has required the surrounding states to look again at homosexual unions. Expect cases to be brought in the surrounding states challenging the respective state laws

Massachusetts has not only approved of same sex unions in their own state they have now in effect spread the approval over a region.

[conservative blonde]

Don't burn yourself if you light a candle.

[conservative blonde]

Good. Instead of hiding this under a bushel basket, let's require state legislatures to make decisions about what happens in their state. Representative government means just that. Nuts with this consensus crap, let's make majority decisions. Make our representatives take a stand one way or the other.

[FormerLib]

Light stands against the darkness! ;-)