Posted on 12/07/2007 12:22:30 PM PST by PurpleMan
Edited on 12/07/2007 8:45:25 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Rhode Island Just Says "No" to Massachusetts "Marriage" [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Bill Duncan at the Marriage Law Foundation alerts me to a ruling that just came down in Rhode Island. The supreme court ruled in a 3-2 decisions that the state will not recognize a Massachusetts same-sex marriage.
The case involved a Rhode Island same-sex couple who had gone to Massachusetts to marry and later sought a divorce in a Rhode Island Family Court. The majority of the state supreme court said the definition of marriage in the statute that gives the courts jurisdiction to grant divorces means the union of a man and a woman.
The decision is online here.
This decision seems to further isolate Massachusetts as the redefining marriage state.
Is something (besides the Narragansett freezing over?
Guess they don’t want Newport to become another P-town.
Warning to Rhode Island residents: the margin of ERROR is just one. Don’t know how those justices are chosen, but there are exactly two that should not be retained.
R.I. is tired of being referred to as “Worcestor-by-the-Sea”.
Congrats RI on getting it right, but 3-2 is too close—if you ask me.
all the homoactivists are doing the “we just need to replace one” and the law professors are going to push harder to ensure future candidates from their law schools create a conservative proof lawyer pool.
Why is it 3-2 and not 5-zip?
Ping
Never heard that one!
Justices in RI are chosen in the time honored Rogue’s Island tradition.
They are chosen from the ranks of in-laws, campaign donors and political hangers on who owe, or are owed a favor.
Despite voting for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry by huge margins, RI has a pro-life Republican Governor. He was re-elected last year while Lincoln Chafee was booted out.
Something my Grandmother used to say when she lived there long ago. I remembered it when I read the story.
My question is why do the lezzies even bother. They are just a sick joke, no matter what some corrupt activist judge from Romneyland says.
Just sneak off somewhere, find another carpet to graze, and forget about it.
The decision is online here.
This decision seems to further isolate Massachusetts as the redefining marriage state.
............................................
Massachusetts, hmmmmm. Who was Governor when the law came into effect? The name escapes me.
The opinion (linked in the article) is a fun read - the court took several swipes at the Massachussetts judiciary by stating that statutes cannot be changed by judicial action and must be left to the legislature. The dissent goes off on an “oh, how sad that these poor people can’t get a divorce” rant. And here I thought homosexuals were supposed to have such stable relationships, putting us straight people to shame.
OK, so now the Antiamerican Criminal Lawyers’ Union will take it to the Supreme Court and use a 14th Amendment “Incorporation” or “Full Faith and Credit” argument and FORCE RI to accept it.
Victory is victory
Isn’t the gay mayor of Providence, David Cicilline, planning to run for governor?
If the union was never legal in the first place, then why would there need to be any divorce proceedings?
That was the thrust of the decision, by the majority. Since the "marriage" was never legal under Rhode Island law in the first place, a "divorce" is moot...
the infowarrior
I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised. However, being Providence Mayor isn’t the best jumping-off point to becoming Governor. Very few have ever made the transition. Buddy Cianci (back when he was a Republican) tried to run in 1980, but was destroyed by a 3-to-1 margin by Joseph Garrahy, the Dem incumbent.
Congratulations, Rhode Island. God bless you all.
I read the version that the Providence Journal has and the justices seemed to lament that they were forced to base their opion on an outdated statute. I think the citizens of Rhode Island need to stay on top of this.
there is something called the ‘full faith and credit clause” in the US Constitution that ensures that most licenses, contracts, etc. entered into in one state will be honored by all other states.
It will be interesting to see if this is appealed to the SCT and if so, what their ruling will be.
This is a surprise.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Because RI is LOUSY with Democrats.
The citizens of MA keep trying to get the chance to vote on the decision, but the Democrat weenies in the legislature don’t let us. I guess they don’t want to be targeted by the homosexual mafia which WILL go after them, politically.
Yeah, it’s disgusting, and hopefully, we won’t have to deal with it for too much longer. We’re remodeling our house to get it on the market next year, and then we’re OUTTA here! We’re heading back home to MS.
Thank God for this miracle in a surprising place.
Romney opposed it while he was in office. Democrat legislature and justices supported it.
Guess who loses?
That’s what I was thinking. Rhode island?
Of course, it WAS a 3 - 2 decision, so you could say that Rhode Island’s feet are in the swirling toilet water, fingernails clinging to the rim of the bowl, while the liberal Democrats continue to push the flush handle furiously.
Not to worry. Soon, Faggifornia,led by it's amoral and disgusting sellout Governator, will lead the way far past this abomination.
Will go to SCOTUS on a “full faith and credit” argument.
In Florida we had “Will the last American leaving Miami please bring the flag?”
HA...a good decision by 3 judges [judges staying within their job description for a change]...it’s the law folks...it’s not our duty to rewrite laws...any other ruling would’ve been just that...
People with common sense are few and far between in Massachusetts.
A very similar event happened in Texas 4 years ago when two men who had a Vermont civil union tried to get divorced. The judge granted their divorce, but Attorney General Abbott reminded the judge that he couldn’t dissolve what didn’t exist in Texas. The judge set up a second trial to dissolve ?whatever? but the suit was withdrawn.
My state, Oklahoma, was one of those that voted on this before Massachusetts passed their law just for that reason, so that gay persons who were married in Massachusetts couldn’t come here and demand all the privileges of a married couple.
They will seek a writ of mandamus under Art 4, Sect 1 of COTUS:
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
Classic SCOTUS case.
Good old Mitt, he really was a Lyndon Johnson type of guy. He could really find ways to get the legislation going. Not. Not to mention no problem burning every Republican in the State since he was abandondeding it to run for President.
Mitt being Governor was just a big ticket punch for Mitt. Mitt got the ride and Republicans and supporting independents got the bill. Well, what do you expect out of a Harvard, elitist stiff?
Why don’t they just go to Mass? It is only an hour away.
The “full faith and credit clause” has been ignored by the anti-self defense states for years.
Moving out of MA next spring.
Can’t understand how two same sex people can marry. Purely nuts.
And with Anthony Kennedy plus four left-wing loonies on the court, I don’t trust the Supremes.
But the libertarian types here will fight to the death to keep a federal marriage amendment out of the Constitution, on state’s rights grounds, even if the result is a federal judicial fiat forcing same-sex “marriage” on every state.
In other words, they’d prefer an actual, massive increase in federal power to a federal constitutional amendment which merely authorizes the states to do what they want to do in the first place.
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.