December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2003

« Far-Right Congressional Crackpots Go Berserk Over Immigration Bill | Main | "Life Ain't Nothin' But Bitches and Money. Hee Hee Hee Hee!" »

March 31, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Well, I'm not sure you're being totally fair here. You're placing all the blame on Romney - but it's the SJC, the same court that issued Goodridge in the first place, that rendered this decision upholding the 1913 law as applied to out-of-state couples. I'm all for gay marriage, and I'm not even sure this decision was right, but it wasn't just Romney's doing.

And are you sure it's beyond doubt that the marriages would be merely symbolic? They'd be valid within Massachusetts, for whatever that might matter, and my sense, without researching it, is that the "state policy" exception to the Full Faith and Credit clause hasn't really been conclusively adjudicated yet. It's probable that, given other states' enactment of state DOMAs, the federal courts would find a valid exception to FF&C and find that other states didn't have to recognize SSMs licensed in Mass., but I don't think you can say it's settled law - and besides, several states don't have DOMAs. In California, I doubt they could claim a public policy exception at all. Which, again, is good - I'm just trying to think through the legal angles.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Support This Blog

Philadelphia Bloggers