posted
The measure to undo the court order to allow Same-sex couples to marry in Massachusetts by amending the state constitution has been overwhelmingly defeated. (157-39) Link
What fascinates me about this is that it passed (109-92) just one year ago. The legislature had to pass it in two consecutive sessions before it could move to the statewide ballot to be decided by the voters.
quote: "Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry," said state Sen. Brian Lees, a Republican who had been a co-sponsor of the amendment. "This amendment which was an appropriate measure or compromise a year ago, is no longer, I feel, a compromise today."
To me this is supremely good news. Many people on this forum have stated that they believed gay people would eventually have some form marriage-like rights in the country, but it probably wouldn't be "in our lifetime". To me this is further evidence of the acceptance of gay citizens as people just like everyone else. I am surprised at the huge turnaround in opinion among the legislators in Mass. in just one year, but I'm pleased to know that the "cats and dogs living together" doomsayers are being proven wrong in that state.
quote: The proposal also was opposed by critics of gay marriage, who want to push for a more restrictive amendment that would ban both gay marriage and civil unions. The earliest that initiative could end up on the ballot is 2008.
Does anyone here think this initiative has a snowball's chance? If the compromise amendment was struck down because the compromise was deemed unfair, do they think an even more blatantly bigoted amendment will pass? I'm generally not one to count chickens before they're hatched, but I feel more confident today that SSM in Mass. is here to stay.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
The amendment only needs 50 votes in the legislature, 2 consecutive years. It doesn't need to pass. The standard is very low... just 25% of legislators need to vote for it. And many voted against this one (well, hard to know how many right now, at least some) because they want the more restrictive measure, and think that gay civil unions is just as evil as gay marriage. So, while this is an important step, the next amendment still might pass.
Whats encouraging is 17/18 freshmen voted against this compromise measure, and all have said they will vote against the more restrictive measure. That looks to be a trend that will continue, with anyone new we elect to the legislature likely to fall into that same category.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
I didn't know that all that was needed was 50 votes. Still, I think the trend is hopeful and barring wholesale pandemonium due to the same-sex marriages being performed now, (which I think is unlikely) I don't see the trend reversing.
By the way, does anyone know if there are cases yet of any same-sex couples married in Mass. moving to another state and challenging for recognition? How about Mass. same-sex couples filing federal taxes claiming "married" status?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there are some in the works, but due to an old miscegenation/age of consent law, it will be hard to do so; if you don't live in MA (or plan to live there after marriage) then the Commonwealth nullifies your marriage if SSM is not valid in your home state.
Which simply means that you should join the New England clump, Karl --
Not to derail the thread for vanity, but I have to mention that _I_ just got married, the traditional way, in MA recently. The forms were all "Party A" and "Party B", with a check box about who is the groom and who is the bride. Not a big deal, just your normal government paperwork. At the time it was exciting, realizing that I was _really_ getting married to my beloved.
posted
Bok, I know that you have to be MA residents and/or plan to live in MA. But let's say a gay couple from MA gets married and plans to live in MA. If they subsequently leave the state ever and become residents of another state (which doesn't recognize SSM) then MA nullifies the marriage?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Possibly... The caveat is that they are using a 100-year-old law, and I have no idea about the legal parameters that have been built up through precedent up until now. I'll go looking.
posted
Here is a letter from the Conn. AG to Gov. Romney, which describes the law Romney is now enforcing to keep SSM marriage in-state (2nd or 3rd page):
posted
Well, I'm sure there's wiggle room for different interpretations, but it seems to me that this law only applies to non-MA residents attempting to circumvent the laws of their own state by marrying in MA. One would have to show that my theoretical couple married in MA and at that time intended to actually take up residence in a different state.
I'm (obviously) not a lawyer, but that statute does not appear to be talking about MA residents who intend to stay in MA at the time of their marriage, but who later move.
Edit to add:
Additionally, the letter from the Conn. AG seems to be saying to Romney that under current Conn. law, there is no provision that would make the MA marriage invalid if a same-sex couple married in MA and subsequently moved to Conn. He seems to be saying that while Conn. does not perform SSMs and while any such marriages performed in Conn. would be held invalid, that doesn't mean a valid SSM done in MA would be automatically held invalid in Conn. if challenged.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If they subsequently leave the state ever and become residents of another state (which doesn't recognize SSM) then MA nullifies the marriage?
Not according to my understanding. Only non-residents are affected by this.
Of course, the new state might not recognize it, but that's very different than it being invalidated.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Dag. That was the way I understood it, too. Now, does anyone know if there are any cases in the works challenging any other states on these grounds? I'm guessing not yet and that it will be a rather prominent news story when it does happen.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
