![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Massachusetts Supreme Court rules: Ban on gay Marriage unconstitutional!
The legislature has 180 days to implement a plan to extend full civil marriage benefits to gay couples in the state. There is hostility to the measure, but unless the GOP can shove a constitutional amendment through in 180 days or less, gay marriage will be the law.
And know what that means? Under Article. IV. Section. 1. of the US Constitution:
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.
This has been held up in many court cases to apply explicitly to marriage. So, get married in Mass., and you are married in every state of the Union!
The legislature has 180 days to implement a plan to extend full civil marriage benefits to gay couples in the state. There is hostility to the measure, but unless the GOP can shove a constitutional amendment through in 180 days or less, gay marriage will be the law.
And know what that means? Under Article. IV. Section. 1. of the US Constitution:
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.
This has been held up in many court cases to apply explicitly to marriage. So, get married in Mass., and you are married in every state of the Union!
no subject
Date: 18 Nov 2003 11:00 (UTC)(Of course, this makes the argument of the Religious Right for a Federal Marriage Amendment all the more compelling from their viewpoint. However, even conservatives (http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_11_16_corner-archive.asp#019840) are skeptical whether this could work.)
no subject
Date: 18 Nov 2003 12:21 (UTC)In other news, I want to steal your icon.
no subject
Date: 18 Nov 2003 12:42 (UTC)Hope you feel better.
no subject
Date: 18 Nov 2003 14:55 (UTC)no subject
Date: 18 Nov 2003 18:47 (UTC)Also, the state not allowing gay marriages to be *formed* isn't the same as gay marriages being illegal.
Consider that there used to be states that didn't allow divorces. But if you went to (say) Nevada, and got a divorce there, it was still valid when you returned.
no subject
Date: 18 Nov 2003 19:17 (UTC)No, letting gay marriages be formed isn't quite the same, but the argument that the laws apply only to one and not the other has not been attempted and would be quibbling on a level that most judges would find contemptible even in this day and age of the limitless loopholes in tort law.
Yes, there were states that themselves did not allow divorce but still recognized a divorce from another state. That is an example of what you described in the second paragraph, changing the status of an arrangement being illegal but the arrangement itself NOT being illegal. In this case, many states have already adopted mini-DoMAs that explicitly make the male/male and female/female combinations illegal and invalid, so they would not have to recognize the arrangement from another state.
no subject
Date: 18 Nov 2003 18:42 (UTC)A few years back Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act. (DOMA). It *specificly* states that gay marriages need not be recognized by other states.
So the matter will go almost immediately to the Supreme Court. Who will either rule DOMA unconstitutional, or affirm it. If they affirm it, then we'll have to fight the battle state by state.
If they rule against DOMA, then the states will have to recognize the marriages. But expect it to take years.
no subject
Date: 18 Nov 2003 19:14 (UTC)It specifically stated that the full faith and credit clause requires that marriages in one state be recognized by other states. In addition, there are a raft of cases that say that any marriage legal in one state, are legal in them all. (Oddly, many of these marriages seem to have their root in Las Vegas..)
no subject
Date: 18 Nov 2003 21:33 (UTC)no subject
Date: 18 Nov 2003 20:04 (UTC)What happens if the Massachussets legislature fails to pass something that satisfies the court within the 180 day time limit?
no subject
Date: 19 Nov 2003 01:40 (UTC)It's happened before...
Date: 19 Nov 2003 11:34 (UTC)Yes, but this is Massachusetts
Date: 19 Nov 2003 11:30 (UTC)He does this by either funding programs that were supposed to have ended or withholding funding from programs he doesn't like. Both houses of the state Legislature is veto proof (with overrides locked in), so he can push through just about anything he wants.
He has been a long time opponent of this type of law, has however said that he will "allow the state House to vote on it."
It will be interesting to see how it plays out, since the gay community is very well organized in the Commonwealth and even the governor (a Mormon) is for civil unions that give full legal rights.