The Hub of Politics

The Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts today decided - correctly - that a 1913 state law forbidding nonresidents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state is indeed Constitutional.

"The laws of this commonwealth have not endowed non-residents with an unfettered right to marry," the court wrote in its 38-page opinion. "Only non-resident couples who come to Massachusetts to marry and intend to reside in this commonwealth thereafter can be issued a marriage license without consideration of any impediments to marriage that existed in their former home states."

Completely correct.

I'm not a lawyer and I make no effort to pretend to be one here, but this decision seems to be perfectly logical. Regardless of the particular transaction - marriage, in this case, Massachusetts laws are not binding on other states, nor are other state laws binding on Massachusetts. Massachusetts has no more right to force our laws of "marriage" on the rest of the country than does, say, Delaware have the right to force their laws of incorporation on us.

And no - it does not appear that "Full Faith and Credit" applies because these people have gone to another state specifically to circumvent the laws in their own state. If they intend to stay in Massachusetts then there is no problem, but they have no legal standing to demand their states recognize a contract that is specifically unlawful under their laws.

That certainly seems to be the case the Commonwealth made to the SJC:

Attorneys for the state argued that Massachusetts risked a backlash if it ignored the laws of other states by letting same-sex couples marry here when their own states prohibited such unions.

Obviously, the plaintiffs don't see it that way.

"It's a statement that's not really based around any sense of humanity, but really on a sense of politics, which is really not a fair way to treat people. It's a hurtful thing," said (plaintiff Mark) Pearsall, of Lebanon, Conn., who traded vows with Paul Trubey in Worcester in 2004.

Uh, Mr. Persall - not to put too fine a point on it, but the law has nothing, precisely, to do with your "sense of humanity". You might also want to recall that the Life's Not Fair™ principle applies.

The Governor - for the rest of the year anyway - is pleased with the ruling:

"We don't want Massachusetts to become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage," Romney said. "It's important that other states have the right to make their own determination of marriage and not follow the wrong course that our Supreme Judicial Court put us on."

Well said - again, Governor.

I commend the SJC for finally deciding that it is indeed the executive and legislative branches of government - and not the judicial - that are charged with the regulation of marriage.

I am left only to wish they demonstrated such wisdom back in 2003.