Latest bad news for gay marriage in Massachusetts

[Rick Munroe]

http://nytimes.com/2004/03/31/national/31MARR.html

[Guest Les]

Rick, I'm afraid a lot of people won't register to read a NYT article:

 

March 31, 2004

New Pall Falls on Gay Wedding Hopes

By PAM BELLUCK

 

BOSTON, March 30 — Same-sex couples living in states where laws ban gay marriage will not be able to marry in Massachusetts, the state's attorney general said Tuesday.

 

Although the state's top court has ordered that gay and lesbian couples can begin marrying in Massachusetts on May 17, the attorney general, Thomas F. Reilly, said an obscure 1913 state law prevented the state from issuing marriage licenses to couples who are not eligible to be married in their home states.

 

"I think there's at least 38 states which do not recognize same-sex marriage," Mr. Reilly said of the 38 states with laws defining marriage as a heterosexual institution. He said Massachusetts should give a list of those states to town clerks so they could refuse marriage licenses to people living there. "They're not entitled to get married in the state of Massachusetts," he said.

 

Mr. Reilly's interpretation of the law could thwart the plans of couples around the country who had been planning to get married here once such unions became legal.

 

David Tseng, executive director of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, said Mr. Reilly's pronouncement was disappointing. "He's supposed to enforce the law for the 21st century, not the last vestiges of the 19th century," Mr. Tseng said. "These politicians are making fugitives of our families who simply want to commit to loving stable relationships and receive the same protections that other citizens do."

 

Mary Bonauto, a lawyer for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the group that won the Massachusetts case legalizing gay marriage, questioned "whether this law is enforceable" and said it raised "pretty serious questions," including the issue of "treating in-state folks different than out-of-state folks."

 

Ms. Bonauto also said she believed that residents from some of the 38 states might be eligible because only those states whose laws declared same-sex marriages void would run explicitly afoul of the statute.

 

Mr. Reilly was at the center of another controversy over gay marriage Tuesday, when he once again refused Gov. Mitt Romney's request to ask the court to push back the start for gay marriages from May 17.

 

Mr. Romney asked Mr. Reilly to seek a stay after the state legislature voted on Monday to approve a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and create civil unions for same-sex couples. That amendment cannot take effect unless it is approved again in the 2005-2006 legislative session and is then approved by the voters in November 2006.

 

So unless Mr. Romney, a Republican who opposes gay marriage, can find a way to delay the court's ruling, same-sex marriages will be permitted for at least two years before an amendment can ban them.

 

On Monday night, Mr. Reilly, a Democrat who also opposes gay marriage, said that although he disagreed with the court's decision, he could not find any legal grounds for asking the court to issue a stay.

 

Mr. Romney repeated his request on Tuesday, sending a letter to Mr. Reilly asking him to appoint a special assistant attorney general to file the action on behalf of the governor if Mr. Reilly was reluctant to do so. "It is not right for the attorney general to leave the governor and the people of Massachusetts without recourse to the courts on a matter of critical importance," Mr. Romney wrote.

 

At a news conference, Mr. Romney said the Supreme Judicial Court had taken eight months to reach a decision on the case legalizing same-sex marriage, and "I think the people of Massachusetts have the right to have the same level of time and respect."

 

Mr. Reilly held his own news conference later on Tuesday. "Whether the governor likes it or not, whether I agree with the decision, the plaintiffs have won their case," said Mr. Reilly, who represented the state in that case and unsuccessfully argued against gay marriage. "And they are entitled to the rights that they have won. And I will not stand in their way. My job is to enforce the law, and I will do that. The governor's job is to implement the law of this state and I expect him to do that."

 

Mr. Reilly, who is often mentioned as a potential candidate for governor in 2006, when Mr. Romney is likely to seek re-election, said on Tuesday, "We have based our decision on the law and not politics."

 

Ann Donlan, a spokeswoman for Mr. Reilly, said the attorney general and his staff had evaluated the merits of asking the court for a stay after it issued two rulings legalizing gay marriage. They concluded that the court would probably decide that there was greater harm in denying same-sex couples marriage for more than two years than there was in compelling them to change their status should the amendment pass.

 

"We've already been before the court twice and made just about every potential argument that one can make," she said, "and all of the arguments have been soundly rejected." Asserting that the court would consider an amendment's chance of passage "highly speculative," she said, "It's not clear that another legislature would approve the same amendment next year and that once it got on the ballot voters would pass it."

 

Many legal scholars agree that a stay is highly unlikely. James Tierney, a former attorney general of Maine who now directs the attorney general program at Columbia Law School, said Mr. Reilly would be jeopardizing the credibility of his office if he sought a stay when he did not believe it was legally justified.

 

"The court will see instantly what this is and they won't like it," Mr. Tierney said. "This would kind of cheapen all the other cases that the office of the attorney general has in front of that court."

 

 

Katie Zezima contributed reporting for this article.

[Rick Munroe]

>Rick, I'm afraid a lot of people won't register to read a NYT

>article:

 

Les, I would have rather posted the entire article but the last time I did that, someone reprimanded me for wasting bandwidth and told me to only post links from now on. (Then again, that person wasn't HooBoy or Daddy, so I should have just told them to kiss my ass, but I'm a nice boy and I don't do things like that.)

[Spida]

If I remember correctly it was me who repremanded you.. Now get that ass over here for me to kiss!! :-)

 

I have to be quite honest living in MA and watching all the "goings on" of the convention and people on both sides, I have really tried to put myself in the other persons shoes. I just can't understand what the big deal is if they allow gay couples to marry! I can understand alot of stances that I don't agree with but this one just doesn't jive with me..

[Guy Fawkes]

You can kiss my ass anytime you want...but be prepared to turn around after you do....It'll by my turn! }(

[Regina]

Hey Rick,

 

Can I kiss your ass too? Do you ever do public appearances in NYC? I would love to have a cocktail or two with you. You seem pretty cool.

 

xoxo

 

-Regina

[Rick Munroe]

>If I remember correctly it was me who repremanded you..

 

Now you see how obedient a cocky guy like me can be if he sets his mind to it.

 

>Now get that ass over here for me to kiss!!

 

And that's a command I willingly obey! }(

[Rick Munroe]

>You can kiss my ass anytime you want

 

Daddy, I only kiss faces, but I'll gladly turn around. }(

[Rick Munroe]

>Can I kiss your ass too?

 

YES! I live for that. Well, that and ebay.

 

>Do you ever do public appearances in

>NYC?

 

Yes, I just made an appearance at the Gristede's on 8th Ave in Chelsea. That was yours truly in the bread aisle getting his buns squeezed by choosy shoppers. }(

 

>I would love to have a cocktail or two with you. You

>seem pretty cool.

 

What a nice thing to say. Can I just have water, though? Two sips of anything alcoholic and I become a Vitameatavegamin commercial. :+

[Regina]

I LOVE that Gristidi's! Have you checked out the new Whole Foods store...and that big market shopping store building that has all the little shops and flowers and stuff...(can't think of the name right now). Anyway, now that people in Chelsea look like individuals instead of identical twins I LOVE going south of west 31st! Maybe we'll meet some day over a pomagranite juice or two!

 

Happy days!

 

-Regina

[Luv2play]

Well, getting back to the subject at hand, after that ass-kissing diversion, (ahem), the news is not all bad. I like that guy Reilly who said that altho he didn't agree with the court's decision, he was still determined to implement the new law. As he said, the case has been won and the people involved deserve the new rights they have won to be implemented without delay. Compared to what Mitt Romney has tried to do, quite refreshing!

[VaHawk]

I agree, as I REALLY don't understand all the brouhaha over "gay marriage" per se versus legally sanctioned gay civil unions that contain all the legal rights that adhere to "hetereosexual marriages".

 

Since matrimony is mostly a religious ceremony, and in the Catholic Church a "holy" ceremony, I fail to see why a legally sanctioned civil union between gays is so unacceptable, especially when such recognition was not EVEN FATHOMABLE 30 years ago!

 

IMO, there are LOTS of issues concerning homosexuality that are more pressing than being "married" via religious rites. How about inclusion of sexual orientation as a protected category under the national EEO laws? How about the abolishment of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" for military service by gays and the full acceptance and protection of the right of gays to a career in the military services?

 

Homosexuality is an abhorrent act under most religions including Christianity and Islamism, so condoling "gay marriage" is in violation of such teachings, and is absolutely not going to fly with adherents of these religions. One of the founding principles of this country, is the SEPARATION of church and state, so I see nothing wrong with keeping it that way, by the denial of "gay marriage" via "gay civil unions".

[Barry]

Hawk I totally agree that the word "marriage" shouldn't have to be the goal and Civil Unions would be great. That said I think the aim of pushing for marriage is more one of the BIG picture. We have plenty of attorneys here at the MC so guys jump in if I'm off base.

 

A Civil Union would not grant Federal benefits since those are based on "marriage" and "spouse". I read somewhere that those benefits number over 1,000.

 

A State (such as Massachusetts) legalizing same sex "marriage" equal to opposite sex marriage has a potential ripple effect on all other states and even the Feds under Article IV, Section I of the Constitution. Full Faith and Credit in Article IV guarantees certain things recognized in one state must be recognized in all other states and indeed by the Federal Government. One of the most frequently applied examples of Full Faith and Credit is the rule that a marriage which is good in the State where performed ( lex loci ) is good elsewhere.

 

So if a gay couple in Massachusetts gets married there in May and moves to Illinois later this year, Full Faith and Credit may very well mean Illinois must recognise their marriage granting full benefits in Illinois. When they file their 2004 tax returns will the IRS have to recognise them as "married"? This sets the scene for major constitutional legal issues that would have to end up in the laps of the Supremes.

 

This ripple or domino or bombshell I think is one of the major reasons some are so strong on "marriage" vs. civil unions.

 

Barry

[jimbeaux]

The "illegal" marriages I attended in New Paltz never once attempted to have a relgious connotation, other than those participating celebrants themselves interjected. The same with marriages that take place in front of a judge or justice of the peace, or in my brother's case, on a cruise ship in the Virgin Islands. I mean most religions frown on fucking before marriage as well. If I start caring what "they" think of me or want for me, I'd walk around with a heavy heart all the time.