Oh what tangled webs we spin when trying to marry men to men. The Supreme Court of Massachussetts, in an effort to dial back the Constitutional crisis it provoked by permitting gay marriage, has ruled that out-of-state couples may not marry in MA unless their home state constitutions also permit them to marry (thus upholding a 1913 statute). So now the SCOM has put MA courts in the position of interpreting every other state's constitution. Love it. And what's going to happen when the MA court says same-sex marriage is legal in New York and then New York says it isn't? As may actually happen, please note:
The original lawsuit was filed by eight out-of-state couples and 12 cities and towns, claiming the 1913 statute was discriminatory and had been invalidated by the legalization of gay marriage in the state.Or what if a state such as LA passes an amendment to its constitution forbidding same-sex marriage, and then a court says the amendment is unconstitutional a few years later? Oy.
In its decision, the court denied the claims of all but the couples from New York and Rhode Island, because laws in those states have not specifically outlawed said gay marriage.
The high court sent those cases back to the superior court judge who had originally denied them, asking the judge to determine whether same-sex marriage is allowed in those states.
