grrrr

[rm]

If I want to marry a man somewhere other than New York (such as say, Massachusetts) and come back to live in New York, I can do that. But if it's a girl, apparently I fucking can't. Is MA really going to start denying marriage licenses to straight couples looking for marry, but not settle, there for whatever reason?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Gay-Marriage.html

Grrrrr. grrrrr. grrrr.

Comments

[lordcamiliano.livejournal.com]

I've never heard of a marriage license being invalid from state to state for straight couples. Sounds to me like it'd be unfair and wrong to limit gay couples that way.

[iterum.livejournal.com]

It's a sad holdover from the days when some states banned interracial marriages, but still on the books here in MA. Some states might have stricter minimum ages or degree-of-relation restrictions for marriage, in which case I assume Massachusetts clerks couldn't issue them licenses. But maybe someone with actual experience in this matter, or legal education, could tell me I'm full o' crap here.

RM: As far as I know, Romney has required this law to be enforced from the very beginning, so unfortunately it's not an issue of whether MA is "really going to start denying" the licenses in such circumstances, but whether they'll stop. I have a vague recollection that when I got married we had to sign something saying we were either MA residents or else legally allowed to marry in our home state.

Possibly some MA clerks have issued licenses anyway in violation of the law. Go them. Watch for this matter to work its way up to a US Supreme Court near you.

Full Faith and Credit....

[sarantha.livejournal.com]

There is a contention that needs to be brought before the Supreme Court and hasn't been, strictly speaking, yet. On the one hand, you have the rights of states to set their own laws regarding marriage as is granted to them by the Constitution (any powers not granted to the Federal are, de facto, granted to the States.) On the other hand, you have the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution which says that one state must respect the laws of another and it has been held that marriage (and Divorce - think Las Vegas) laws are directly affected by this.

Of course, under the Roberts court, we probably don't need Full Faith and Credit. We're dumping so many other parts already. :P

[askeladden.livejournal.com]

God fucking damnit. Well, there goes that idea.

{kicks things}

[sethg]

I know the Republicans have enjoyed making "Massachusetts" an epithet for unbridled liberalism, and I wish we deserved that reputation, but, well, we don't.

When the state Supreme Court handed down its ruling on same-sex marriage, a lot of Democratic state legislators objected to it. (The Attorney General, a Democrat, also objected. He is now running for governor, facing a more progressive opponent in the primary, and trying to backpedal.)

In order to amend the state constitution, the exact same resolution to amend it needs to be passed in two successive legislators. The first time around, the legislature voted to pass something that would eliminate same-sex marriage but permit civil unions. (This was a compromise between a faction of the legislature that wanted to keep same-sex marriage and a faction that didn't want to permit same-sex anything.) The second time around, everyone noticed that a few years of same-sex marriage had not led to the collapse of civilization, and the bill failed in the legislature.

[rm.livejournal.com]

What boggles my mind is that people think there's compromise on this issue. Like, either you think gay people are just as moral/human/deserving as straight people, or you don't. This whole "almost" routine actually pisses me off more.

[sethg]

A while ago I floated the hypothesis that straight people support civil unions when their definition of marriage is tied up with their gender identities: "Announcing that I am married to a woman is one way of communicating that I am male, and if that announcement no longer entails that meaning, then it will be harder for me to express my own gender."

I'm not 100% sure that's the right analysis, especially because "civil union" is not always defined as "marriage in all but name". But it does seem consistent with the way the Massachusetts electorate has lost interest in the issue.

[rm.livejournal.com]

It stuns me on a nearly constant basis that people don't have the logic circuits to be embarassed by their astoundingly petty cowardice.

[sethg]

They have the logic circuits. They just have all those logic circuits busy rationalizing their astoundingly petty cowardice.

[raaven.livejournal.com]

Grrrr, indeed. Fuckers.

[delchi.livejournal.com]

Come to vegas. Anyone can get married here. Hell, you can get a Klingon to marry you here if you want.

Point of curio : This whole affair makes me wonder what the point is of getting married anymore. The advantages legally that are achieved by being married can ( IIRC ) be just as easily secured by a few legal documents - and the rest is just a magic show. I don't mean to seem blunt and insensitive, but I've never understood the need for people to go through with the whole noisy you must do X to meet our approval business. I would like to think that we have evolved past the need for a church wedding to make the family happy - and more into the base reason for the marriage - two people dedicating themselves together. I think we have lost the message in all of the fighting, ceremony, mandatory gift buying and other reindeer games. I do understand the legal aspects of it - but outside of that it should be no more and no less than a celebration of two people making a strong decision in a diffucult world.

Personally, to hell what the state, church, or anyone else has to say concerning gender pairing. Any two people who are willing to dedicate their lives to each other for the duration need nothing more than the fortitude to do just that, and need not seek the big rubber stamp of OK from anyone else.

I know that some people are bound to the concept of their family, and to be perfectly honest I'm removed from that having no family to speak of since 1988. I went through the loss of that, so I don't have to worry about going home for the holidays and so on. This taints my opinions and thoughts more than a little, and I understand that. I just get amazingly angry at the world for making a huge thing out of this simple concept based exclusively on preconcieved gender roles. Having more than a few friends in same gender relationships ( both married and unmarried ) I really don't see what the big deal is by comparision. I feel the same happiness and slight twinge of jealousy ( those lucky kids - starting a new life off together ) that I do for any other marriage/handfasting/kilingon bonding ceremony[1].

Are we sill living in a world where we belive that the gods will strike us down if we have marriages that are not approved of by the perdominant religion of the region? While we are at it, let's live in mud huts and throw virgins into the volcano before planting.



[1] Yes, I have frinds who have done the klingon bonding ceremony. I have the wedding invitation to prove it.