« Democrats Will Say Anything | Home | The Curse of the Were-Rabbit? »
SJC: Out Of State Gay Couples Can’t Come To Mass To Marry
By Matt Margolis | March 31, 2006
Three years ago, the Supreme Judicial Court legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts… Now, they have ruled that out of state gay couples can’t come to Massachusetts to marry… A suprising decision, given their past ruling…
Justice Francis Spina wrote Massachusetts “has a significant interest in not meddling in matters in which another state, the one where a couple actually resides, has a paramount interest.”
The state “can reasonably believe that nonresident same-sex couples primarily are coming to this commonwealth to marry because they want to evade the marriage laws of their home states, and that Massachusetts should not be encouraging such evasion,” the ruling said.
Will this stop gay couples from coming en masse to Massachusetts to marry? Maybe to a degree, but naturally we can expect more battles in the courts, and perhaps gay couples establishing residency in Massachusetts in order to obtain a legal “marriage.”
Topics: General |
Related Posts:
March 31st, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Court: Gays Can’t Come to Mass. to Marry
Same-sex couples from states where gay marriage is banned cannot legally marry in Massachusetts, the
April 5th, 2006 at 12:04 am
So do you all feel that gays should or should not be able to marry? Not civil union bullshit but marry. No one group has the corner store corner on “love”.
If you think or dont think they should be Id love to hear the reasons.
mike
April 6th, 2006 at 9:28 am
Can we get an opinion on this please.
April 6th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
Marriage is between a man and woman.
April 7th, 2006 at 10:05 am
I’d like a better reason.
April 9th, 2006 at 11:01 am
What better reason is there then the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman?
April 11th, 2006 at 10:08 am
Because you are obviously worried about something awful happening. I want a reason that explains why it’s a good thing to not allow gays to marry.
April 21st, 2006 at 11:53 am
Earlier this year in Vermont two straight men got a civil union. Two widowers wanted to look after each other.
You can argue marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Fine. But give gays (or anybody, including straight Vermonters) a civil union where they can go down to City Hall, sign some forms, pay some fees, and allow them to make legal and medical decisions for each other.
Ultimately, though, I don’t think gay marriage is more than an nonissue used to whip up the GOP base. Look for lots of “I HATE FAGS” speeches leading up to the fall elections.
May 1st, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Marriage is between a man and a woman? According to scientists, this view is incorrect. The American Anthropologists organization has rejected conservative’s view about marriage.
Here is an excellent article titled: “Scientists counter Bush view
Families varied, say anthropologists”
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/27/MNGSK59NGM1.DTL
Here are some excerpts from the article:
“Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies,” the association’s statement said, adding that the executive board “strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.”
The statement was proposed by Dan Segal, a professor of anthropology and history from Pitzer College in Claremont (Los Angeles County), who called Bush’s conception of the history of marriage “patently false.”
“If he were to take even the first semester of anthropology, he would know that’s not true,” said Segal, a member of the anthropological association’s Executive Committee.
————–
What’s this? Scientists reject conservative arguments? I’m shocked!!! Just shocked!!!
May 19th, 2006 at 9:43 am
I’m sorry; allow me to clarify.
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Why?
uh, because . . . ummm. . .
Did I say that Marriage is between a man and a woman?
Why?
uh. . . hmmmm. . .
let’s just say it’s because . . . because . . .
uh . . . marriage is between a man and a woman. Yeah, that’s it! Because marriage is between a man and a woman.
May 19th, 2006 at 9:48 am
You are all wrong. Allow me to demonstrate.
What Matt is trying to say is that the reason why marriage should not be allowed betweem same-sex couples is because that is a logical impossibility.
We begin by defining marriage as a kind of union that may only exist between a man and a woman. Once we accept that definition there can be no marriage between same-sex couples. Q.E.D.
Same principle drives the geocentric theory. We begin by defining the Earth as the center of the solar system. Once we accept that definition, it is logically impossible for the Earth to revolve around the sun.
Er . . . I mean, . . .
Wait.
Oh well, never mind.
May 19th, 2006 at 9:52 am
To whoever it is that is posting to this Blog under various fake names:
Please stop revealing what an under-educated mental midget I am. I can do that quite well on my own.
Thanks.
p.s. Did I mention that marriage is between a man and a woman?
May 19th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Matt,
You have yet to give a reasonable explaination.
May 22nd, 2006 at 12:40 pm
The word for this phenomenon is tautology. There are reasonable arguments to be made against gay marriage and I, as one distinct individual who has not posted anything, am happy to engage with them, but they have not yet been made in this thread.
May 22nd, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Also, I am very glad for you, Matt. Massachusetts will be buttressed by all of these stable partnerships of people who, willing to uproot their lives from the other 49 states and establish residency in a welcoming polity, will contribute tax dollars while placing less strain on the public schools and other services, will spend their generally greater disposable income in your state, and will support open and affirming religious congregations, voluntary organizations, non-profit groups and other institutions of civil society (not to mention all of the fabulous weddings they’ll have). Congratulations on your good fortune! Nothing like a stable family to make a society stronger.
May 23rd, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Maybe Matt is gay. He does have a beard.
May 29th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Charles,
I don’t think you read what I wrote, nor do I think you have even a basic understanding of anthropology. As I said before, anthropological studies reveal that there is no single set definition of marriage. The “one man, one woman” argument is false pure and simple, because one man, one woman is the exception not the rule, historically speaking. Most marriages throughout history were polgamy, not monogamy.
Using definition as an argument against gay marriage is not only poor reasoning, it’s scientifically inacurate.
July 7th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
[Note to Matt Margolis: Mattie, if you’re gonna pretend to be against same-sex marriage, you’ll have to at least use some detailed arguments to make yourself sound convincing. I had to write a paper for an Ethics class on this at the University of Hartford and I’m pretty sure, no matter what my conclusions, that my paper spanned at least a few pages…
So I’m gonna steal your show. You’ve seen this other short essay before, but I’m gonna add it to this discussion just for kicks. Don’t you wish I was writing for one of your websites? Tee hee. Later.]
***
“Legalizing Same Sex Marriage”
Chris Dubey
Originally Written March 29, 2003
The question of whether the United States government should legalize same-sex marriages has been a controversial public policy issue. People say that same-sex marriages should not be legalized for various reasons based on their philosophical beliefs. Yet all of these beliefs exhibit fallacies that can easily be brought to light, when given just a bit of thought, proving that same-sex marriage is not corrupting or immoral, does not grant special treatment to homosexuals and bisexuals, nor is it against the will of any divine being.
To begin, several people falsely argue that same-sex marriages would corrupt the institution of marriage. Some of these same people say that homosexuality and bisexuality are okay, but, at the same time, they contend that legalized gay marriages would destroy the sanctity of the institution of marriage. Their fallacy is an easy one to prove – the false assumption that the institution of marriage is inherently heterosexual and retains its sanctity by remaining this way. The truth is that if the institution of marriage really is inherently heterosexual, then it is also inherently corrupt, because it grants special treatment to heterosexuals, who are allowed to marry while their homosexual and bisexual counterparts are not. If the institution of marriage is thus inherently heterosexual, then it is also inherently perverse by virtue of giving unequal treatment to different groups of people simply because of their differing sexual orientations. Therefore, changing the institution of marriage so that it would include same-sex marriages would only help to end the inherent corruption in the institution and change it into a form that is truly sanctified and respectable. For the same reasons, the belief that same-sex marriages would corrupt the institution of our government is wrong. For if our government is inherently heterosexual and made to give special rights to heterosexuals, then it is already corrupt and must transform itself to maintain its integrity.
As to the belief that same-sex marriages would be giving special treatment and/or special rights to homosexuals and bisexuals, we can see by the rational refutation in our previous argument that to believe such is also to believe that homosexuals and bisexuals do not deserve the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts, that giving homosexuals and bisexuals equal rights would be the same thing as giving them special rights and/or special treatment. The problem is that equal rights are not special rights; they are simply equal rights. If heterosexuals are already allowed to marry one another, then it could only be an act of equal treatment also to allow homosexuals and bisexuals to marry one another, not an act of special treatment. If anything, it is heterosexuals who are already being given special rights and/or special treatment, because they are allowed to marry while their homosexual and bisexual counterparts are not, and this goes against the virtue of equality espoused by our founding forefathers and mothers.
Others say that same-sex marriages are against the will of a divine being, but this cannot be true, for to say such a thing is to say that the divine being in question, i.e. God, is against equality. We have already established that the act of legalizing same-sex marriages would be an act of creating equal treatment and, therefore, for a diving being to be against such an act, She, He, or It would have to be ideologically opposed to equal treatment, espousing the ‘virtue’ of special treatment for heterosexuals, who are already allowed to marry, while their homosexual and bisexual counterparts are not.
Finally, certain people claim that allowing same-sex marriage would erode human reproduction. The existence of homosexual and bisexual couples with children by one partner and the other by an egg or sperm donor goes against this argument. Furthermore, with more than six billion people on planet Earth, the human species would do well to curb its own reproduction anyway. With fewer and fewer resources going to each individual because of overpopulation, same-sex couples do the world a service when they adopt the needy children of others who cannot afford to take as good care of them. To say that these children require heterosexual parents to mature properly is to say that they would be better off in poorer conditions.
We see, then, that just a little bit of analysis proves that same-sex marriages are not unjust, but rather that the legalizing of same-sex marriages is a necessary step in the transformation of the institutions of marriage and government into the just institutions they were meant to be.