Lets All Go To Mass. And Get Married

(Boston, Massachusetts) A Massachusetts judge Tuesday will be asked to issue an injunction stopping the state from preventing same-sex couples who live outside Massachusetts from getting married.

“These couples ask simply that the Commonwealth fulfill the constitutional guarantees of equal treatment and not single out non-resident gay and lesbian couples by denying them alone access to marriage licenses,” said Michele Granda, a staff attorney with GLAD, the LGBT advocacy group which won last year's landmark ruling allowing same-sex marriage in the state.

The ruling went into effect in May (story) but Attorney General Thomas Reilly (D) under pressure from Gov. Mitt Romney (R) has ordered clerks not to issue licenses to couples from out-of-state, citing a 1913 law that says marriage licenses cannot be issued to couples from other states if those marriages would be "void" in the states where the couples reside.

The law had been created when Massachusetts legalized interracial marriage and faced an outcry from other states which still banned the unions. Even then, the law was seldom enforced. After the US Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that preventing interracial marriage was illegal and struck down bans in those states which still prevented them the Massachusetts law collected dust.

Eight gay and lesbian couples from across New England who either married in Massachusetts, but now face claims that their marriages are null and void, or who were denied marriage licenses are represented by GLAD. The suit was filed in conjunction with a suit by 13 city and town clerks, represented by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union. (story)

Tuesday afternoon judge Carol S. Ball will hear arguments from GLAD, the ACLU, and from the Attorney General's office which is seeking to have the out-of-state ban maintained.

In a written brief, Reilly argues that throughout the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that opened up gay marriage the court continually refers to "residents" of Massachusetts.

The brief quotes a part of the majority decision that states:

"We would not presume to dictate how another state should respond to today's decision... Each State is free to address difficult issues of individual liberty in the manner its own Constitution suggests."

Reilly also argues that allowing gay couples to marry in Massachusetts, in defiance of their home states' laws, could give other states' more impetus to support a federal constitutional ban on gay marriage, which is currently being debated by the U.S. Senate. It could also make them more likely change their own state constitutions.

Granda calls the argument disingenuous.

"The fear of retaliation from other states can't be stopped by catering to that discrimination," Granda said.

"The bottom line is, we're looking at whether it's appropriate to be looking at the laws of some other states when someone comes to Massachusetts wanting a Massachusetts marriage license from a Massachusetts clerk," Granda said.

If Judge Ball grants the injunction it could open a floodgate of same-sex couples from across the country seeking to wed in the state.

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/07/071204massCourt.htm

Couple the potential positive outlook from this story with the news that Wednesday sees congress vote on whether it should be legal or not in the constitution for same sex partners to marry looks like we have a week of some high political issues coming.

Regards,

Lee