Somerville and gay marriage

[georgy.livejournal.com]

According to WBZ-AM 1030 this morning, Somerville is going to be one of the town's that doesn't give a rat's ass about residency come May 17 and the legalization of gay marriage, joining the ranks of P-town and Cambridge (Boston seems to have wussed out). So people can come and get married with no questions or hassle.

Hooray!

Comments

SCORE!

[iusebigwords.livejournal.com]

ROCK ON!

[rojagato.livejournal.com]

Don't forget Wistah!

Hunh. I wonder whether there will be any DNC conventioneers that will try to take advantage of the situation--assuming that our governor, who has a very poor understanding of the role of the judicial branch, doesn't find some way to bollox this up.

[betra.livejournal.com]

Oh this is excellent news!

The problem is whether or not the issued paper will be considered legal, and if NJ feels they have to honor it since MA has their ancient law on the books.

Hmmmmmmmm

[12stringsamurai.livejournal.com]

well... I think the way it works is that regardless of whether the residency thing is enforced or not, a state that does not recognize same-sex civil marriage will not recognize a marriage liscense from MA and thusly the marriage will be void in that state (but not void in MA unless it is found that those married are not A) residents of MA or B) in the process of becoming residents of MA). I think that was essentially the official "spirit" of the 1913 ruling (so as to avoid the hassles to the liscensee of their marriage rights and responsibilties changing drastically from state to state)... whether or not that was the true intent of the old law remains rather questionable.

so unless NJ recognizes same-sex civil marriage, or will recognize the authority of MA to perform such civil marriages and commute the rights/responsibilies of such, then NJ has no legally binding reason to honor it.

I'm fairly sure that MA is the only state that will recognize such civil marriages, although I heard something about another state (I think it was Oregon) that said that while it would not liscense same-sex couples, it would respect liscenses granted from outside the state (i.e. MA, Canada, Belgium... so on/so forth). I could be mistaken there.

[betra.livejournal.com]

Well NJ has a very good Domestic Partner policy, but while it provides many good things, it just isn't the same as getting the marriage benefits

[12stringsamurai.livejournal.com]

probably not... I'm not really a law expert myself (although I used to work as an engineer for a GLBT Talk Radio show so I've picked up on alot of the recent jargon). I'm pretty sure what would happen would be a couple would have to have is a marriage certificate that is recognized in MA and not in NJ, and whatever the equivalent proof of "domestic partnership" is that is recognized in NJ but not in MA.

Confused yet? I sure am... personally, I still think that the state and federal government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Either give NO ONE "mariage" licenses and give everyone "domestic partnership" (or whatver terminonogy you want to use) licenses (which I feel will probably be what ends up happenings somewhere down the road anyways) or make a definitive statement reminding the world that "civil marriage" and "marriage" are two entirely different states of being. It doesn't seem logical for the gornment to be involved in defending the "sanctity" of something.

I mean... would you really want your state senator to be involved in deciding what is and is not "sacred?"

wow.... I didn't mean to rant there on your thread. You might want to ask the state of NJ how it would deal with that, though (I might myself, now that my interest is peaked).

[betra.livejournal.com]

LOL

Actually I can't say I disagree. In my mind Marriage is religiously based. Therefore everyone should be considered in a Domestic Partnership and if they then want the religious tag also, they can have it but it should only apply to religious things, not FEDERAL or STATE LAW.

NJ is pretty liberal all things considered.

I would like to see everyone placed on a legally equal footing though. It is not like gay parents love their kids less, and in some cases might be better at the job.

[12stringsamurai.livejournal.com]

yeah... on a similar note, in a country where approx 50% of marriages fail anyways I don't think we have any real moral authority to tell people "no, you aren't allowed to have a committed monogamous relationship."

[betra.livejournal.com]

Amen!

[artemii.livejournal.com]

i'm not sure whether all states will invoke DOMA (the "Defense of Marriage" Act) or not. it says that states don't have to recognize other states' same-sex marriage licenses, but if i understand the law correctly, it doesn't say they can't.

[12stringsamurai.livejournal.com]

oh yeah... I"m not saying that all states will invoke a DOMA but MA, although if memory serves me right 38 already have (although the constitutionality of DOMAs is up to alot of debate as well and I would not be amazed if you start seeing many of them fall over the next few years), but those who do not have DOMAs or even those who have them but still will accept out of state marriage liscenses, more power to them!

Thanks for looking on the bright side, though. Somebody has to!

[artemii.livejournal.com]

i was talking about the federal DOMA, alas. and yes, i agree completely that it's unconstitutional; it just hasn't been tested in court yet. :)

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

The situation in 1913 was strikingly similar to the situation now. Massachusetts, being more progressive than the rest of the country, had decided to recognize interracial marriages, which most states at that time did not. In order to avoid chaos and interstate battles (and possibly to avoid a backlash, or a test of the full faith clause which no one was feeling quite up to), the 1913 law was instituted. Yeah. Um. Sound familiar?

[12stringsamurai.livejournal.com]

I thought that it had something to do with interracial marriages, but I wasn't sure (and must admit I was a shade too lazy to look it up at the time).

While I will not go as far and say, as many have, that the fight for civil marriage rights (even civil rights overall) for homosexuals has reached (or will reach) quite the same destructive apex that the civil rights movement did when it applied to people of colour, the similarities are still rather striking. To be optimistic... as bad as things are now, we know that they aren't as bad as they were then and thusly means maybe we have learned a little something in the interim?

not much... but a hope I guess that we have grown slightly more tolerant, but of course a long way still needs to be travelled.

[crypticusername.livejournal.com]

Fuckin' a.

[rmd.livejournal.com]

awww yeah. i'll be wandering up there in the morning on monday, on the assumption that there will be a commotion there.