Mitt is dancing . . . the SJC turned down gay marriage for nonresidents

Please see: DU LBN thread at . . . http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2197741

I INTENDED to reside here, but circumstances got in the way? Does one have to play a game, rent a place, get a driver's license, get married, and then move away???

Jeez, this reminds me of the games they played with divorces in Vegas, back in the old days. Way back when, Las Vegas was one of the few places one could get a "no fault" divorce, without having to say that one party cheated or beat the other.

What are the requirements for a couple to establish residency?

and the threshold is very very low. Something about "intent to reside" plus a reasonableness standard. Like, uuummmm, a utility bill w/ your name on it, an affidavit from an at-will (w/o a lease) landlord, a signed lease from a landlord, a voting registration, a car registered in Massachusetts, less likely would be a job since the New England state borders are so close, etc., etc. Those are examples of how to legally "prove" that you have an intent to reside in a state.

Timeframe would be interesting. What if you had demonstrated an "intent to reside" then move out of state? Well? It would then kick in the reasonableness as to time u/ your facts and circumstances. The fall down would be that your marriage would become null and void if you didn't comply w/ the law and this SJC ruling.

edited for a typo.

If gays can't marry from out of state, it seems like rather UNEQUAL PROTECTION if they allow Susie and Bobby from New Yawk City, or Glenda and Troy from LA, to jet over to the Vineyard for a romantic Cape and Islands nuptial event, dunnit??

Howsabout really fucking up the boutique wedding biz, from the winter festivities in the Berkshires, to the Colonial weddings at Old Sturbridge Village-type settings, to those sandy shores of olde Cape Cod?

Get the hospitality industry's balls in an uproar, and maybe we'll see something move on this issue...!

with his residency requirements when he was choosing which state to run from (Utah or MA- remember those days?)

another rich frat boy with
a just a bit more brains than
our current POTUS

.
Ooops, I goofed . . .

In my haste to post this thread, I failed to type out the entire url of the second newspaper article in the OP . . . the second newspaper article is "(Massachusetts Supreme Judicial) Court: Gays Can't Come to Massachusetts to Marry, (AP) by JAY LINDSAY."

The correct url is: http://tinyurl.com/hvtof (tinyurl.com url instead of the AP article url was used bc the AP's url was too damn long. DU software *hates* long urls and spits em out!)

1) It says that we don't intend to presume to tell other states who can and cannot be allowed to marry. And that we expect that other states will honor all marriages performed in Massachusetts.

In other words...

Does this mean that Massachusetts must sue on behalf of gay citizens of The Commonwealth who are discriminated against in other states?

2) The decision also says that the state must evenly apply the law to ALL out-of-state couples.

Obviously, this means that all out-of-staters marrying in Mass. must meet the same burden of proof to show their marriage is legal in their home states.

Does this mean that heterosexual couples from outside Massachusetts might have "useless pieces of paper"?

I don't think Governor "Big Love" Romney should be dancing.

Anyone want to volunteer to search their local town hall marriage licenses to look for heterosexual couples who need to be told their marriages are nullified?

Yes, Associate Justice Ireland, who is the sole juvenile law/family law expert on the SJC bench, is correct. And, his legal theories in his dissent may be used, I believe, to over-turn this most recent SJC ruling on same-sex marriage. However, it's premature at this time. My reasonings are articulated elsewhere in another DU thread.

Neither McNamara or Justice Ireland are applying realistic politics in this time of religion-into-law uber-rightwing social stances across America that would be detrimental to the same-sex marriage goal. And, that goal is universal same-sex marriage in America, not merely Massachusetts forcing its law upon the rest of the country. What a backlash that would make, ready for further extremist campaign fodder!

I am not saying that sitting justices should apply politics in their legal reasonings, for they should not do so. Justice Ireland is correct in not doing so. However, McNamara's national political shortsightedness is inexcusable. No matter how much one may agree w/ Justice Ireland's well reasoned dissent, I believe as do many other lawyers believe that it would impede -- not help -- the goal of achieving universal same-sex marriage in America at this time. Take note, please, that the operative words are "at this time."

my second paragraph has a grammatical error. "Neither McNamara or Justice Ireland are" should read, "Neither McNamara or Justice Ireland is."

.

In my (above) OP I hyperlinked to a G.L.A.D. website which brings up a .pdf format of this Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case, Whiteacre etal v. Department of Public Health etal, __ Mass. __ (#SJC-094356, March 30, 2006); however, findlaw.com has a .hmtl format version of the case at:


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ma&vol=sjcslip/16042&invol=1
(Whiteacre etal v. Department of Public Health etal, hmtl format, ct's opinion and dissent, March 30, 2006)