Bay State's High Court Upholds Block on Non-Resident Same-Sex 'Marriages'
By Allie Martin
March 31, 2006
(AgapePress) - The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has ruled that homosexual and lesbian couples from states where same-sex "marriage" is banned cannot marry in Massachusetts. The high court in Boston based its ruling on a 1913 law that was enacted to keep non-residents from exploiting the Bay State's less restrictive marriage laws.
Republican Governor Mitt Romney had invoked the 1913 statute to block same-sex couples from Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island from turning Massachusetts into a homosexual marriage "Mecca" for couples from other states. Liberal proponents of same-sex marriage argued against the governor's use of the 48-word law, which says that residents from other states may not get a marriage license from Massachusetts if the state where they live does not recognize the Massachusetts marriage.
Those who opposed Romney's action claimed the law was unfair and that it had "sat on the shelf unused for decades." But pro-family attorney Mat Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, says the ruling is solid and "means that any person who did not live in the state of Massachusetts, but who obtained a same-sex marriage license, now has a worthless piece of paper."
Such laws restricting non-resident marriages or the recognition of them, are fairly common across the United States, Staver contends. Many states have these "marriage fraud laws, as they are referred to," he says, "or laws that are designed to prohibit the state from becoming a marriage mill."
Essentially, the attorney explains, these "marriage fraud laws" mandate that two people who reside in another state "cannot come to this particular state to obtain a marriage and return to [their] home state when [the union] is actually not recognized in [their] home state."
Eight same-sex couples from other states had challenged the Massachusetts law and Romney's use of it in court. Ultimately, the issue came down to a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and Staver feels the justices made the right decision.
"In this case," the head of Liberty Counsel says, "they could not get around the very clear 1913 law ... and, as a result of today's decision, there are many people now realizing that their so-called same-sex marriage license is just a worthless piece of paper."
Nevertheless, Staver says a federal marriage amendment is still needed to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman throughout the United States. Other traditional marriage advocates agree and are likewise continuing to push for federal action.
Family Research Council president Tony Perkins says this ruling by Massachusetts' highest court "has great implications for the marriage debate nationwide," in part because it "prevents an opening of the floodgates to litigation in all 50 states." However, he contends, this one court decision will not settle the issue for a small subset of the out-of-state plaintiffs.
"We dodged a bullet in Boston," Perkins asserts, "but we are not free and clear yet." He urges pro-family forces to "stay engaged" in anticipation of further activist efforts and legal challenges aimed at redefining the institution of traditional marriage.
Bay State's High Court Upholds Block on Non-Resident Same-Sex 'Marriages'
Author