Massachusetts Governor Orders Record of Gay Marriages
Yep, I’m sure I’ll light a few fires today, but here it goes – the Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick has ordered the recording of 26 out of state gay couples who came to Massachusetts to get married. These marriages will not be recognized by their home states and that is part of the reason former Governor Mitt Romney blocked them.
As you may or may not know, Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage and while several states offer civil unions, most ban gay marriage specifically. Since the State’s Supreme Judicial court ruled that the constitution of Massachusetts allowed gay marriage in 2003, more than 8,000 gay couples have wed in the state.
One of the landmark couples has since filed for divorce. Governor Romney’s reason for not allowing the out of state couples to have their marriages recorded was based on another judicial decision. This one handed down in March of 2006 that said they could use a 1913 law to prohibit out of state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if their home state explicitly prohibited that type of marriage.
Gay couples from Rhode Island may marry in Massachusetts because a judge ruled in September that their state laws do no specifically prohibit same-sex marriage. Whew – so what does it mean for these out of state couples to now have their marriages recorded in the Massachusetts vital statistics?
In my humble opinion, it won’t mean a whole lot. It’s a gesture of respect and acknowledgement for the couples who traveled to Massachusetts to marry but it will not change their status in their home states and many of the couples were given their marriage licenses by clerks that were defying the previous Governor. It’s hard to support something where one Governor is basically giving the finger to another Governor and it will be hard to look at Governor Patrick when clerks defy his orders and say they should follow them when he’s given support to others who defied the previous governor.
Right, wrong or indifferent – we have to respect the law and we have to work to change it in a positive manner. Quiet defiance does have its place, I agree – but I think this is far more a political finger in the eye than it is a positive step.
Indiana Proposal for Gay Marriage Encountering Resistance
In Indiana, the battle for gay marriage seems to be changing the players around a bit. A committee in the Indiana Statehouse was debating a measure that may be labeled controversial. The measure is a same-sex marriage ban similar to those passed by many other states, however – that’s only the first part of this measure. The second part of the measure is what’s really got the blood pounding and not just by proponents of same-sex marriage, but also by corporations and more.
What does this second part consist of?
According to local newspapers in Indiana, the second part of the measure would actually prohibit Indiana courts from recognizing what is referred to as ‘legal incidents of marriage.’ Now, can they vague that up a little bit more? The language is very vague and those opposed to the bill state that it could be used to remove domestic violence protections for unmarried couples who live together (hetero or homosexual) and with language that vague it could prohibit state universities and private companies from offering domestic partner benefits for their unmarried employees.
Because of this, some corporations including Cummins Inc, a large state employer, are against the measure as they feel it would prevent them from recruiting quality employees into the state as well as making Indiana far more inclusive. Supporters want the measure to pass and be opened to the voters, with the language intact so that the state can show it’s support for traditional marriage and traditional marriage only.
Did anyone see this coming?
I can’t say I’m surprised, intolerance comes in many forms and there is a great fear where traditional marriage is concerned. Yet the same types of conservatives that would oppose state interference in encouraging couples to take pre-marriage education classes to get a license in one state would likely support a measure that would prevent unmarried couples from receiving any ‘legal incidents of marriage’ support from another.
Call me quirky, but isn’t government interference, government interference? What do you think?
Related Articles:
Marriage Debates: Here We Go Again
Marriage in the News: Class or Fee, which Will it Be?
Marriage in the News: Seriously?