Posted on 03/30/2006 9:21:29 AM PST by Andy'smom
BOSTON --The court that made Massachusetts the first state to legalize gay marriage ruled Thursday that same-sex couples from other states where gay marriage is prohibited cannot marry here.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
A state can pass residency requirements for marriage, but it can also allow out-of-staters to marry. I think it's purely up to the state.
But the state laws do not require residency to get a marriage license.
I believe most states have residency requirements.
See my post #19 - there is no residency requirement in Mass to get a marriage license.
See my post #19 - Mass doesn't.
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.
I think Rhode Island might be the next state.
And that link you supplied shows that cousins may marry in Massachusetts, something that is not allowed in some other states.
That's what the original law addressed, it just happens to logically apply to "same-sex unions" as well. ;-)
Well, maybe that explains why Massachussetts is so whacked out. They're all inbred.
Buying a drink is not an activity that requires any legal documentation.
No, the law dates back almost a century and stemmed from Massachusetts approving marriage between cousins.
The pro-homo cheerleaders will go into a hissy about this targeting the turd burglars, but it really was applying existing statutes to "same-sex unions."
Actually, I was correct. See my post #19. There is no residency requirement in Mass to get a marriage license.
True, but the 1913 law prohibits couples from marrying here if the marriage would be in violation of their own state's laws (can't marry 1st cousin).
The difference is that buying a drink doesn't require any legal transaction whatsoever.
But the problem is, the court did not apply existing statutes. They created a new one - there is no residency requirement for marriage licenses.
That would explain their electing Ted Kennedy ad nauseum as well as the "same-sex marriage" nonsense.
Someone from Mass help me out here.
I though Mass was a Commwealth - not a state.
The existing statute read that a couple (referring to a normal couple originally) could not marry in Mass if they were legally prohibited from marrying in their home state.
Establishing Mass as their state of residence changes their home state.
It is.
Thats an interesting perspective. People that petition the government to recognize them in an effort to gain status sounds like the people are intruding upon the government, not the other way around. I don't see how the libertarian philosophy has any bearing on taking the position that gays should be allowed to marry (each other). Of course, I've gone 6 days without a cigarette, and my circuitry might not be functioning normally.
Oh, so the Court thinks it's allowable to force their own citizens to accept it but won't take the logical step in demanding everyone else accept it?
Tsk. Where are the courage of your convictions MASS? Did the backlash you spawned against your own liberal brethren in other state elections intimidate you? At least temporaily it seems.
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.