Supreme Court Won't Bar Start Of Mass. Gay Marriages

NBC 4 news ^ | May 14,2004 | NBC News

[JudgemAll]

It just breaks my heart. We are headed down a very slippery slope.....

Yep, they're not homophobes nor criminalophobes nor exploiterophobes there... they are just gunophobes... they're normal people, you know.

[tuesday afternoon]

From Can America Survive Same-Sex Marriage?

From the religious point of view, same-sex marriage and its public sanction of homosexuality will desecrate God's name. On a much larger scale it will also risk the loss of His blessings on the United States, so eloquently requested by President George Washington in his first Inaugural address (1789):

… it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes.

[Screaming_Gerbil]

     

Crowds Gather for Gay Weddings in Mass.

By JENNIFER PETER, Associated Press Writer

BOSTON - Like fans anxious for concert tickets, same-sex couples waited for line for hours Sunday outside Cambridge's City Hall for an event they once thought they'd never get to experience: marriage.

Marcia Hams, 56, and her partner, Susan Shepherd, 52, of Cambridge, showed up at midnight Saturday — a full 24 hours ahead of time — to stake out the first spot in line where the city clerk was to hand out the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriage applications.

"People do this for Red Sox tickets, concert tickets," said Hams, a health care advocate who has been with Shepherd, a graduate student, for 27 years. "Certainly we can do it for this."

The couple, one of five stationed outside city hall by mid-afternoon, sat in lawn chairs, donned rain jackets to protect themselves from a light drizzle and drank plenty of coffee. Sunday morning, a young man approached them and gave them a large red flower, saying, "I wish you a long and happy marriage."

Cambridge, across the Charles River from Boston and home to Harvard University, decided to seize the earliest moment to begin the process of granting same-sex couples the historic right that gay-rights advocates are seeking in dozens of states. Mayor Michael Sullivan planned to help cut a three-tiered wedding cake to mark the occasion, and people around the state also held celebrations.

Alex Fennel, 27, and her partner, Sasha Hartman, 29, were in line at Cambridge, happy they didn't have to wait until later Monday morning to begin the marriage process.

"We came here because I've been waiting seven years and I don't want to wait another day, another second," said Fennel, a lawyer from Boston. "For me, it's excitement and gratitude. It's nothing I ever thought we would be able to do."

Massachusetts was thrust into the center of the nationwide debate on gay marriage when the state's Supreme Judicial Court issued its 4-3 ruling in November that gays and lesbians had a right under the state constitution to wed.

In the days leading up to Monday's deadline for same-sex weddings to begin, opponents looked to the federal courts for help in overturning the ruling. On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene.

The Massachusetts ruling touched off a frenzy of gay marriages across the country earlier this year, emboldening officials in San Francisco, upstate New York and Portland, Ore., to issue marriage licenses as acts of civil disobedience. Even though courts ordered a halt to the wedding march, opponents pushed for a federal constitutional ban on gay marriage, which President Bush has endorsed.

The ruling also galvanized opponents of gay marriage in Massachusetts, prompting lawmakers in this heavily Democratic, Roman Catholic state to adopt a state constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage but legalize Vermont-style civil unions. The earliest it could wind up on the ballot is 2006 — possibly casting a shadow on the legality of thousands of gay marriages that could take place in the intervening years.

As of Monday, Massachusetts joins the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada's three most populous provinces as the only places worldwide where gays can marry, though the rest of Canada is expected to follow soon.

Across the state on Sunday, gay-rights advocates held "Countdown to Equality" parties to celebrate the impending nuptials and to keep attention focused on the political fights ahead.

"I have a younger crowd of friends and I wanted to create some awareness," said Josiah Richards, who was hosting a barbecue for about 35 people in Boston's West Roxbury neighborhood on Sunday.

Several churches held ceremonies honoring gay parishioners and recognizing the fight they've waged for marriage rights.

Robert Compton and David Wilson — one of the seven plaintiff couples in the lawsuit that led to the state court's landmark ruling — attended services at Arlington Street Church in Boston a day before they will exchange vows in the church.

Monday marks the culmination of a legal battle by the couples that began in April 2001 after they were denied marriage licenses. Clerks in the state's 351 cities and towns have made plans to bring in volunteers and expand their work space in anticipation of a deluge of couples.

Opponents of gay marriage have no organized protests planned Monday, although they promise to continue to fight the state high court ruling and to pursue state and federal amendments banning gay marriage.

Out-of-state gay couples, meanwhile are likely to challenge the state's 1913 marriage statute, which Gov. Mitt Romney, a gay-marriage opponent, has cited to limit marriages to only Massachusetts residents. The law, which gay-rights advocates have labeled discriminatory, bars out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if the union would be illegal in their home state.

Several local officials, including those in Provincetown, Worcester and Somerville, have said they will not enforce Romney's order and will give licenses to any couples who ask, as long as they sign the customary affidavit attesting that they know of no impediment to their marriage.

In Provincetown, visitors were greeted with a sign that read "Congratulations, newlyweds!"

"It's the next evolution in the history of marriage," said John Yarbrough of Minnesota, who traveled to Provincetown to marry his partner, Cody Rogahn. "The idea of who you love shouldn't be dictated by the government."

[Dimensio]

However, I'm not as sure about those who fear that legal marriage to a child, an animal or an inanimate object is next.

Child marriage is the only remotely legitimate concern (and even then, it is, as I said, remote). Marriage is a civil contract between two individuals. It is impossible for an animal or an inanimate object to be a party in any civil contract. As such, you won't see anyone pushing for marriage to animals or inanimate objects until you either completely change contract law so that a non-human object is able to be a party (and I don't see how you're going to be able to show informed consent) or have animals and/or inanimate objects recognized as having the ability to consent and given the same legal righs as humans.

As for marriage to a child, my current response is "what is wrong with a 40 year-old man marrying a 9 year-old girl?" I ask this not because I honestly think that there's nothing wrong with it (in fact, I do not think that it's an acceptable pairing at all), but because I want to know exactly why you see it as a "bad thing".

[Dimensio]

couldnt homosexuals get married anyway? its just that the goverment would not recognize it??

Yeah, that's the issue. Same-sex couples can "marry" in ceremonies performed by religious institutions that recognize such unions (whine all you want about apostate faith, I'm an atheist and not all religions are "Christianity"). The problem is that they do not receive the legal rights and benefits granted to opposite-sex couples, such as (to name just a few, as there are over one thousand) automatic hospital vistation rights and significantly reduced inheritance taxes following the death of a spouse (not to mention significantly reduced legal hassles if the deceased did not leave a will).

[Hotdog]

No...THEY are heading down that slope...lets keep our spirits up and God will determine the path we walk...

[Dimensio]

i am not even trying to make a point, i really want to know why I cant carry a concealed weapon in MA if i have a license to do it in another state.

I think that this is because MA doesn't permit for concealed weapons. This is different than marriage, where all states currently recognize marriage between two people. If there were a state without marriage laws (that is, the state does not formally recognize marriage between any couples, and grants no benefits therefrom), you would have a similar case where a couple from another state would find themselves without their union recognized by the marriage-less state. Of course, because marriage also entails federal benefits, that does open up another can of worms, though IIRC no state is actually required to provide for state-level marriage benefits.

Moreover, I'm not sure that the paralell works as nicely as you want because marriage is a civil contract while concealed carry permits are, as you said, permits. Concealed carry permits are not "contracts" between parties, so there's nothing for another state like MA to recognize with respect to a legally binding agreement between two (or more, in the case of non-marital contracts) parties.

I think that MA (and every state) should allow for concealed carry, but that's another debate.

[TigerTale]

The central claim made by appellants is that the Goodridge decision erroneously interprets the Massachusetts Constitution and state law by appropriating to the court authority reserved to the legislature and, in consequence, violates article IV, § 4, of the United States Constitution guaranteeing to the states a republican form of government. For much of its history the Supreme Court has treated almost all claims under article IV, § 4, as non-justiciable political questions

Goodridge does not establish permanent martial law or declare the Commonwealth a monarchy; and it cannot plausibly be argued that every disagreement about allocation of power within a state government--even a very important disagreement--raises a question under article IV, § 4.

The claim here is that judicial activism brings into being a de facto kritarchy--"rule by judges."

The problem is that, if a Federal court overturns the Supreme Court of Massachusetts on these grounds, it would implicitly call into question Federal judical activism, as well.

In my opinion, neither the appeals court, nor SCOTUS, will want to open this can of worms.

[hunter112]

One thing I've noticed the lack of on this thread--why has no one questioned the tactic of waiting until two business days before May 17th to take this through the Federal court system? I mean, this thing's been brewing for six months, if there was a Federal issue here, why didn't somebody make a case out of it two or three months ago?

My answer to that question is this: The people who oppose gay marriage know that the imminent "sky is falling" tone of their pleadings is the best thing they've got going for them. Upon careful deliberation, the Federal court system will leave Massachusetts law alone, and leave it to the people of that state to deal with the issue in their Constitution. In fact, the very prescence of a Constitutional Amendment to change gay marriage into civil union shows that the process is working, and that there is no need for the Federal courts to interfere in it.

[pollywog]

No...THEY are heading down that slope...lets keep our spirits up and God will determine the path we walk...

You are absolutely right hotdog! THEY are heading down the slope, we are headed to a " city whose maker and builder is GOD"......

[mafree]

Marrying a horse is a bit different because a horse is unable to consent

Correct- consent and the ability to enter into contracts do come into play.

[mafree]

Child marriage wouldn't work IMO mainly because of the ability to give consent and understand/fulfill the contractural obligations of marriage. One area where this gets a bit dicey is when you talk about adult humans of the opposite sex who may be mentally "defective," making their ability to enter into a contract questionable.

In fact, I recall "60 Minutes" or some other such show dealing with the issue of mentally retarded people marrying. This was some 15-20 years ago so my memory of it may be fuzzy, but it seems that some folks had a problem with 2 retarded people marrying each other. The segment featured a retarded couple who did and showed them as functioning well. I remember feeling that it was OK to let the mentally retarded marry as long as they could understand what marriage was and give consent to the best of their abilities.

[johnmorris886]

Many of the Already enacted State Defense of Marriage Acts, have a statement that, at first look, doesn't appear important:

----------------------- Marriage between persons of the same sex

It is hereby declared to be the strong and longstanding public policy of this Commonwealth that marriage shall be between one man and one woman. A marriage between persons of the same sex which was entered into in another state or foreign jurisdiction, even if valid where entered into, shall be void in this Commonwealth.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 1704
-------------------------
Marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman only legally recognized marital contract.

(a) Tennessee 's marriage licensing laws reinforce, carry forward, and make explicit the long-standing public policy of this state to recognize the family as essential to social and economic order and the common good and as the fundamental building block of our society. To that end, it is further the public policy of this state that the historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state in order to provide the unique and exclusive rights and privileges to marriage.

(b) The legal union in matrimony of only one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be the only recognized marriage in this state.

(c) Any policy, law or judicial interpretation that purports to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one (1) man and one (1) woman is contrary to the public policy of Tennessee .

(d) If another state or foreign jurisdiction issues a license for persons to marry which marriages are prohibited in this state, any such marriage shall be void and unenforceable in this state.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-113
------------------------
Prohibition of same sex marriage.

A marriage between persons of the same sex is void ab initio and against the public policy of this State.

S.C. Code Ann. § 20-1-15
------------------------
I can provide many more examples, but in the interest of brevity, The MAJORITY of states that have Defense of Marriage Acts have this statement in them. (A few do not, and would probably need strengthened by adding this statement.)

The Public Policy Statement is EXTREMELY Important.

The Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws #283(2) (1971) states the general rule as follows:

A marriage which satisfies the requirements of the state where the marriage was contracted will everywhere be recognized as valid unless it violates the strong public policy of another state.

Despite the basic rule that a marriage valid where contracted is valid everywhere, the courts and validation statutes have universally recognized a number of exceptions, In Fattibene v. Fattibene, 183 Conn. 433, 441 A.2d 3 (1981) (The court ruled that Connecticut need not recognize marriage that violates strong public policy of state).

In re Estate of Loughmiller, 229 Kan. 584, 629 P.2d 156 (1981) (The Court listed exceptions to validation statute, including marriage that is polygamous, incestuous, or prohibited by the state for public policy reason).

K. v. K., 90 Misc. 2d 183, 393 N.Y.S.2d 534 (Fam. Ct. 1977) (The court was called upon to decide whether law of Poland, which requires civil ceremony in addition to religious ceremony, was repugnant to the public policy of New York).

Kelderhaus v. Kelderhaus, 21 Va. App. 721, 467 S.E.2d 303 (1996) (The Court ruled that marriage's validity is to be determined by law of state where marriage took place, unless result would be repugnant to Virginia public policy).

State Constitutional Amendments would automatically meet the Public Policy Exception, As would Policy Statements in laws like what I listed above. The only problem with a state law rather than an Amendment is that a future Legislature could overturn it, but as long as the Public Policy Statement is in the Law, a Court could not force marriage on that state, without blatant and wanton Judicial Activism and disregard for the law.

So long as a State Had either a State Constitutional Amendment OR a Public Policy Exception then it would be safe from sodomite activist destroying marriage in that state. Sodomites whose "marriage" was conducted in The People's Republik of Massachusetts WOULD NOT be valid in other states, Provided the state has a Public Policy Exception. (Even the harshest Critics of The Defense of Marriage act have acknowledged this fact.)

Even the source that you provided States that States have the Public Policy Exception Power, EVEN if the Federal DOMA was struck down.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Many of the Already enacted State Defense of Marriage Acts."

If you're talking about a State-level DOMA, then there's very little debate from me, except that I believe an Amendment to the State's Constitution would be more effective.

But I was making the point that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Clinton (ironic, isn't it?) is unconstitutional.

Otherwise, your posts actually support my contention that an Amendment to the Federal Constitution defining marriage is not needed, in fact, I think that in light of the Federal government's record on most everything else they've tried to "defend" over the years, the LAST thing we need is to transfer the power to define marriage away from the States, and into their hands.

Your posts ca be used to support the idea that the States listed should be exempted from recognizing same-sex marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause because of the precedents already set in place re: consanguinity, age, etc.

[lentulusgracchus]

In fact, the very prescence of a Constitutional Amendment to change gay marriage into civil union shows that the process is working, and that there is no need for the Federal courts to interfere in it.

Massachusetts's supreme court is running away and deliberately and with premeditation (and not to mention conspiring with one party to the lawsuit) denying the People of Massachusetts a republican form of government as required by Article IV of the United States Constitution, and there is no federal issue here?

Try your pabulum on infants who don't know what the issues are.

[lentulusgracchus]

I remember it was quite a cause for concern in the 1960's when some white neighbors of mine .....

Oh, and the black=gay civil-rights analogy doesn't work, either. Just ask any black AME minister.

And the "conservatives are just silly, neurotic, sad people scared by innocuous and beneficial Change" is a classic liberal smear.

At some point, I'm gonna start wondering if you aren't a liberal seminar poster referred in by Al Franken.

[lentulusgracchus]

Your posts ca be used to support the idea that the States listed should be exempted from recognizing same-sex marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause because of the precedents already set in place re: consanguinity, age, etc.

The idea that we wouldn't need an amendment to the Constitution is an attractive one, but considering that Lambda Legal has telegraphed its strategy in filings and in interviews with Evan Wolfson over the last dozen years, doesn't it seem to be to you a losing play, to meet the salient of Lambda's strategy with inaction?

Lots of homosexual duckspeakers are putting down the same line you articulate: no action required, no there are no implications for your home state, remain calm, do nothing. Given the company you're running with, pardon me if I regard your advice as bad, even toxic.