AMERICAblog: Mass. House votes to let out-of-state gays marry
Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas
· 1 year ago
When you put five or more gay men on a committee to accomplish something, basically nothing will ever get done. We are our own worst enemies. Way too many of us love to thrive on the drama, rather than be pragmatic.
vejo
· 1 year ago
Mitt Romney (who will stop at nothing to harm gay people) dug up this segregationist-era statute to prevent same-sex couples from other states from being able to marry in Mass. He did this with great fanfare to trumpet his social conservative credentials. He mocked gay couples (especially those with children) as he toured the country meeting with extreme right-wing groups in an effort to pad his resume before his run for prez.
But now Massachusetts has a governor who truly understands the meaning of equal rights for all people. He is proud to repeal this law.
Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas
· 1 year ago
Someday I want someone in Boston, my home town, to tell me how the fuck that asshole EVER got within spitting distance to the Governor's job in Massachusetts. I mean really...was it just his magic underwear?
cromulent
· 1 year ago
It's pretty simple, really. His opponent was forgettable and uncharismatic; he was a slick snake-oil salesman who came into the race still basking in the afterglow of his successful organizing of the 2002 Olympics, running as a social moderate in spite of his religious beliefs, and promising to use his business skills and connections to bring jobs to the state and keep government spending under control.
Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas
· 1 year ago
Snake oil....the mother's milk of the GOP.
Õ¿Õ
· 1 year ago
We'll cross that bridge when the time comes.
scooter in brooklyn
· 1 year ago
i married in boston in june 2004 - quite a bit longer than 5 minutes. we've got a long way to go, but if you don't take any steps you sure as shit aren't getting there. this has to end up in the supreme court, maybe even more than once - but some day, justice will prevail.
hawkseye
· 1 year ago
Congratulations! And you are right: justice will prevail.
DavidinChelseaMA
· 1 year ago
EXACTLY. Eventually, with the word marriage on the license, instead of the words "civil union," such a case will be heard, and will have a good chance of winning based on the full faith and credit clause of the United States constitution. DOMA will be struck down. Voting for Obama is extremely important. A vote for the other guy means more horrible Supreme Court justice picks by another GOP homophobe.
hawkseye
· 1 year ago
Out-of-state gays are marrying in California, too.
I served on the Equality California Board and we lobbied for and saw to the passage of all kinds of legislation that gave Transgenders equality in the work place, health care and housing.
Caritina
· 1 year ago
Is there a similar law in California?
Bludevlsadvocate
· 1 year ago
Personally, I am boycotting HRC because I haven't seen them actually DO anything...except throw self-congratulatory dinners every year.
Oops..they DID do something. Endorsed Susan Collins (R-ME) for re-election, but did not utter a peep to support Jim Neal, the openly gay Dem. candidate who ran for the nomination to oppose Liddie Dole here in NC.
They can keep their bumper stickers and Tshirts if that is all they can do.
Indigo
· 1 year ago
Brad hasn't phoned me yet so my same-sex wedding plans are on hold for now. Darn that Jolie woman!
Walker
· 1 year ago
John -- what the hell are you smoking? Your argument (that Mass. allowing out of state couples to marry will result in a lawsuit that will result in a federal constitutional amendment) is completely bogus. This is the worst post I've ever seen from you on this topic. I've re-read the byline several times to make sure it was yours.
1. California allows out of state same-sex couples to marry NOW. 2. So does Canada. 3. It's been 4 years since the weddings started, and I know for a fact that some married couples have moved out of state. 4. Frankly, it is far less likely that a couple from another state will sue. The real lawsuits will come from a MASSACHUSETTS couple (or, now, California) who sue because of something that happened while TRAVELING to another state. Like the woman whose partner took ill and died while visiting Florida, and was prevented from seeing her by the hospital. Things like that are where the real lawsuits will be settled. And yet no one mentions this concern in all these discussions, and I did not hear it brought up by the anti- folks yesterday at the Mass. House debate.
Why is this the likely scenario? Let's use Florida (for no real reason, it's just easier to pose scenario). A Florida couple comes to Mass., gets married, and returns to FL and sues. The courts say no dice -- their marriage isn't recognized by the state they reside in. Against "public policy" and all that, they weren't married before and they're not now. But a Mass. couple visits FL and a hospital denies visitation, and they may well prevail -- because their home state DOES recognize their marriage, they were "just visiting" Florida. They were married before they arrived in for their visit. That's where the "full faith and credit" clause and DOMA will be tested.
ENDA and marriage are parallel progressions. If we were to wait until we got one set of rights completely settled before asking for the next set, we'd never get anywhere. It is not an either-or situation. And you never get what you want by asking for a halfway measure (that is, we won't get marriage by asking for civil unions). We ask for marriage, we might get civil unions, but we might also get marriage. And the arguments and discussions that come from the debate actually further the discussion about other civil rights that are missing -- like the need for a federal-level ENDA.
And no one who CAN get married and WANTS to get married should remain unwed as a show of solidarity to those of us unable to do so. Doing that, though noble and seemingly generous, doesn't actually advance the cause, and can actually harm that couple if they were to need the rights and protections that only marriage offers.
Damn, John, you really pissed me off with this one. I think you seriously need to reconsider or clarify your arguments.
rextrek1
· 1 year ago
John..I gotta' agree with Walker on this one...as a 47yr old Gay man,(48 tomorrow) I never expected to be able to Marry as a self Identified Gay person....I think my generation and that of the early 80's are the last to grow up in our teens and never expect to be able to marry. I myself,do not wish to Marry. But I will do what I can to Help win the RIGHT to Marry for every other gay person,now..and the ones growing up...and the ones Yet to be. Imagine being a young kid..coming into your teens - knowing you are "gay"..and actually having the option of one day - when you grow up..you can meet someone..and actually fall in love and CAN Marry? It's something I never even fathomed at 17yrs old. At 47/48yrs old..I've come to the realization that the America I grew up thinking I lived in..is NOT the America I live in...and it PISSES me off daily basis....I've been told by some close to me - that I seem angry alot...and I hate that.... Maybe I read too many Blogs (moderate Liberal) but I feel I'm informed on a daily basis..as to the Crisis that is the Constitution! I'd rather live in a Moderate/liberal America..where ALL citizens are Equal,and ALL have Health care..then a Greedy..GOP self centered..Rich -Poor America. Disgusted Gay American
dula
· 1 year ago
Cue the song, "Go Slow" by Nina Simone. Didn't many in the Civil Rights Movement have fears that they were asking for too much too soon? Sometimes being pragmatic is just a cover for a fearful person to avoid asking for what he deserves. I want rice thrown at my marriage, not crumbs.
All Comments
But now Massachusetts has a governor who truly understands the meaning of equal rights for all people. He is proud to repeal this law.
And you are right: justice will prevail.
I served on the Equality California Board and we lobbied for and saw to the passage of all kinds of legislation that gave Transgenders equality in the work place, health care and housing.
Oops..they DID do something. Endorsed Susan Collins (R-ME) for re-election, but did not utter a peep to support Jim Neal, the openly gay Dem. candidate who ran for the nomination to oppose Liddie Dole here in NC.
They can keep their bumper stickers and Tshirts if that is all they can do.
1. California allows out of state same-sex couples to marry NOW.
2. So does Canada.
3. It's been 4 years since the weddings started, and I know for a fact that some married couples have moved out of state.
4. Frankly, it is far less likely that a couple from another state will sue. The real lawsuits will come from a MASSACHUSETTS couple (or, now, California) who sue because of something that happened while TRAVELING to another state. Like the woman whose partner took ill and died while visiting Florida, and was prevented from seeing her by the hospital. Things like that are where the real lawsuits will be settled. And yet no one mentions this concern in all these discussions, and I did not hear it brought up by the anti- folks yesterday at the Mass. House debate.
Why is this the likely scenario? Let's use Florida (for no real reason, it's just easier to pose scenario). A Florida couple comes to Mass., gets married, and returns to FL and sues. The courts say no dice -- their marriage isn't recognized by the state they reside in. Against "public policy" and all that, they weren't married before and they're not now. But a Mass. couple visits FL and a hospital denies visitation, and they may well prevail -- because their home state DOES recognize their marriage, they were "just visiting" Florida. They were married before they arrived in for their visit. That's where the "full faith and credit" clause and DOMA will be tested.
ENDA and marriage are parallel progressions. If we were to wait until we got one set of rights completely settled before asking for the next set, we'd never get anywhere. It is not an either-or situation. And you never get what you want by asking for a halfway measure (that is, we won't get marriage by asking for civil unions). We ask for marriage, we might get civil unions, but we might also get marriage. And the arguments and discussions that come from the debate actually further the discussion about other civil rights that are missing -- like the need for a federal-level ENDA.
And no one who CAN get married and WANTS to get married should remain unwed as a show of solidarity to those of us unable to do so. Doing that, though noble and seemingly generous, doesn't actually advance the cause, and can actually harm that couple if they were to need the rights and protections that only marriage offers.
Damn, John, you really pissed me off with this one. I think you seriously need to reconsider or clarify your arguments.