tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7703913.post114433882019289755..comments2023-10-02T04:41:34.722-04:00Comments on Marry in Massachusetts: 1913 Laws Case: Positive Side-Effectmassmarrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02358207247771711952noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7703913.post-1144436944702626772006-04-07T15:09:00.000-04:002006-04-07T15:09:00.000-04:00Good point near the end of yours about the mobilit...Good point near the end of yours about the mobility of SSM couples. Considering that we already have over 7,000 legally married same-sex couples, short of walls and border guards between every state, how is Texas or some other DOMA state going to prevent any one of these couples from moving there, establishing residency and suing for recognition. The bat's out of the cave, or whatever.<BR/><BR/>I'm also with you on Ireland. He nailed it on all the major issues and he was the only one saying, "Ahem, let's be consistent here!"massmarrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02358207247771711952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7703913.post-1144434727780210712006-04-07T14:32:00.000-04:002006-04-07T14:32:00.000-04:00Yeah, I think that's right: the SJC's ruling depri...Yeah, I think that's right: the SJC's ruling deprives the 'phobes of a rhetorical weapon in various political fights elsewhere in the country.<BR/><BR/>Another example: This past week, a committee of the state Senate in my home state barely (5-4) voted down an anti-gay amendment to the state constitution. (It was another one of those "Neither marriage nor <I>any equivalent status</I> shall be granted to anyone other than..." numbers that are already wreaking havoc on domestic partnerships, domestic violence prosecutions, etc., in other states.)<BR/><BR/>I can't say for sure, but it seems entirely possible to me that the vote in my state would have gone the other way had the SJC cleared the way for out-of-state couples to get valid marriages in Massachusetts. The haters were screaming "The homos is gonna get us!" anyway, but quite possibly that would have looked more plausible if Mass hadn't declared its intention to discriminate against outstate couples just as much as their home states do.<BR/><BR/>(Of course, it's still entirely possible for an outstate same-sex couple to get married--the couple in question just has to move to Massachusetts long enough to establish residence, then get hitched and move back "home." A pain in the neck for the couple, sure, but not impossible.)<BR/><BR/>Anyway, "positive side-effect" is right. Not to get all MassResistance on you, but I wonder if this is what the justices in the <I>Goodridge</I> majority, besides Ireland, were thinking when they voted to uphold the 1913 law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com