Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

New gay marriage ruling in Massachusetts

By

The AP reports that a judge has ruled that Wendy Becker and Mary Norton of Providence have the right to marry because “Rhode Island laws do not expressly prohibit same-sex marriage.”

In March, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that Massachusetts could use the [1913] law to bar the couples from marrying in the state, but said the law was unclear in New York and Rhode Island, and sent that part of the case back to a lower court for clarification.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Boston.com also has the story and has Tom Reilly stating that his office has no intention of appealing the ruling and that any appeal would be up to the state of RI.  Great news!

    • It’s not obvious that Rhode Island has any standing to appeal any ruling in this case, since they are not a party to the case.

      • Trying to remember back to my days in Civ Pro.  Would rule 24 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure apply?  That’s the intervention rule where parties can join when their interest are affected and there isn’t another party representing their interest.  Not sure how that would play out in this situation. 

        • RULE 24
          INTERVENTION

          (a) Intervention of Right.

          Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.

          (b) Permissive Intervention.

          […]

          (c) Procedure.

          […]

          <

          p>
          I do believe, however, that states can’t bring other states to trial in a state court.

          <

          p>
          I do believe that would be a federal matter. The quote above is from the USC s. 24, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

          <

          p>
          Here’s the Mass version, rather similar:

          <

          p>

           

          RULE 24. INTERVENTION

          (a) Intervention of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of the Commonwealth confers an unconditional right to intervene or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and he is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.

          <

          p>
          A few things could happen from here, which would probably not be decided in Mass courts.

          <

          p>
          From the news article in the original post:

          <

          p>

          “No evidence was introduced before this court of a constitutional amendment, statute, or controlling appellate decision from Rhode Island that explicitly deems void or otherwise expressly forbids same-sex marriage,” he ruled.

          The ruling has no effect on whether Rhode Island or any other state must allow gay marriage.

          <

          p>
          1. If the case is revisited, it could be remanded to introduce said missing evidence. Reilly has claimed the state will not appeal, and I’m not sure of any other conditions it could be revisited, other than a separate case which is decided by the Mass Supreme Court which sets precedent which overrides this decision.

          <

          p>
          2. When the couple returns to Rhode Island, their legal status of being married is challenged (Filing Taxes, for example) in Rhode Island court, which finds the license invalid. This finding would have to be based upon Rhode Island law, but perhaps some evidence may be introduced that was not introduced in the Mass trial.

          <

          p>
          If either 1 or 2 happen, Rhode Island gay couples will not have the right to be legally married. However, if 2 happens but the Rhode Island court finds the license legal, then you will have a similar Gay Marraige common law that Massachusetts has.

          <

          p>
          (My Civ Pro days are right now)

      • What does RI care if two of its residents get married elsewhere?  RI can decide down the road whether it wants to afford that marriage any recognition.  But I can’t see any way they could intervene here.

        <

        p>
        Anyway, it’s too late – judgment is entered, and MA isn’t appealing.

    • So was he just running to the center for the election when he supported the 1913 law?  Or has he changed his mind again – against gay marriage, but sees that it does no harm to his own marriage so is for it, for the 1913 law but then against it?

      • If he’s going to let this decision stand–which is the right decision, IMO, because that law is a vestige of racism & our state makes no progress by trading one prejudice for another–then good for Reilly.

        <

        p>
        Politicians need to be encouraged when they make good decisions–because they always have so many pressures around them to make bad decisions.

      • If you have read my prior posts, you know that I don’t exactly think Reilly is that great on the issue of gay marriage and disagree with him on his support of the 1913 law, but I don’t think this move is actual backtracking or incongruous with his position on the issue.  When the SJC upheld the 1913 law, they specifically noted that both NY and RI had to be sent back to the lower courts because it was unclear if their laws prohibited gay marriage and therefore whether the 1913 law applied.  Here, the court found that there is nothing in RI law that prohibits gay marriage and therefore the 1913 law does not apply to couples from Rhode Island.  So it is feasible to do as Reilly is doing and support the 1913 law (if a state prohibits gay marriage, then those couple cannot get married here) and support this decision (if no such prohibition exists, then couples from that state can marry here).

  2. BTW, if you read to the last paragraph of today’s Globe article on the new governor’s race poll, there is an interesting tidbit on gay marriage.  Of those polled, 48% support repealling the 1913 law while only 37% oppose the repeal of the law. 

  3. I read about this at my friend’s house in Naraganset, RI the other day… In it, Rhode Island’s AG said something to this effect: this won’t effect gay people who wanted to get married in Rhode Island. He essentially said gay people would have to go to Massachusetts to get married.

    <

    p>
    I’m just waiting for the day where gay marriage becomes conventional wisdom and people don’t care about it. Mark my words, it will happen quicker than people may suspect.

Archives