Massachusetts Decision On Rhode Island Couples

Ever since Hawaii seemed on the brink of redefining marriage in the early 1990s, there has been talk about the effect of one state’s decision to redefine on other states. Much of that discussion was irrelevant when Massachusetts took the plunge since the state already prohibited nonresident couples from coming to the state to get a marriage prohibited in their home state.

This non-recognition law was challenged but upheld by the trial court and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The SJC decision, however, said that the nonresident couples from New York and Rhode Island should be allowed to have an expedited hearing on whether their states would allow such marriages. If so, they would be allowed to marry in Massachusetts.

Today, a Massachusetts trial court issued a decision in that expedited matter. It relied on July’s New York decision to conclude that New York couples cannot marry in Massachusetts.

The standard to apply in the case in Rhode Island was more difficult since the SJC did not have a clear majority in favor of any particular legal standard for determining when another state “prohibited” same-sex marriages. Today’s decision used the narrowest standard

News reports say the attorney general is not planning to appeal this decision. If there is no appeal, any response to today’s decision would probably have to come from Rhode Island since if the Rhode Island legislature were to enact a statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, today’s decision would be superseded.

Nothing in today’s decision, it should be noted, requires any Rhode Island court to recognize a Massachusetts same-sex marriage as valid. That’s a separate issue for Rhode Island to decide.
posted by William Duncan at 1:05 PM | link

2 Comments:

At 9/29/2006 3:31 PM,  Marty said...

How common is it for the courts of state A to interpret the meaning and validity of the laws of state B?

It seems very strange to me. If the courts in Massachusetts wanted to know if the marriage of Mrs. and Mrs. Doe would be valid in Rhode Island, all they would have to do is ask, right? Did they even ask? Or did they know what the answer would be beforehand... yet still manage to draw a completely different (and suspiciously activist) conclusion?

If the marriage of Mrs. and Mrs. Doe would be legal in RI, this could easily be demonstrated by their applying for and receiving a RI marriage license. Even if they still intend to actually marry in Mass.

 

At 9/29/2006 3:35 PM,  maggie said...

Marty, its very common for courts in one jurisdiction to sometimes have to apply the laws of other jurisdictions.

But in this case Mass. courts are interpreting their own law, which forbids marriagees that would not be recognized in their home state.

If a state has passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage, or a DOMA law, then clearly local courts would not recognize a Mass marriage and the marriage itself is prohibited by Mass. law.

But whether Rhode Island will recognize a Mass. marriage is not yet known.

The technical legal question is whether Rhode Island views such marriages as "against public policy" of the state.

Not all marriages that Rhode Island say would refuse to perform, would it also refuse to recognize if performed elseewhere. . .

 

Post a Comment

<< Home