Same-Sex 'Marriage' Juggernaut Dealt Setback in Massachusetts
by Fred Jackson, Jody Brown, and Mary Rettig
August 19, 2004
(AgapePress) - In Massachusetts, several homosexuals from other states are vowing to appeal a court ruling on Wednesday that upholds a ban against them marrying there.
Homosexual "marriage" became legal in Massachusetts in May, and almost immediately same-sex couples from other states started arriving there to try to take advantage of that decision. But Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney stepped in and ordered city clerks to apply a 1913 law that prohibits marriages that would not be legal in a couple's home state.
Eight homosexual couples -- from Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont -- went to court claiming that 1913 law was discriminatory. Each of the couples reportedly stated they were non-residents when they applied for marriage licenses; three were denied a license.
But in her ruling yesterday, Superior Court Judge Carol Ball upheld the 1913 law, saying it is being applied equally to all non-residents. However, Ball also said she sympathized with the homosexual plaintiffs and declared she was "troubled" by the state's decision to suddenly begin enforcing the 91-year-old law.
The Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), which represents the eight homosexual couples, expressed disappointment with the decision, but says they are not discouraged. In fact, GLAD attorney Michele Granda contends the decision provides "validation" of their core argument: that the state of Massachusetts "should not be in the business of discriminating against gay and lesbian families."
Granda says the case may ultimately be decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court -- the same body which legalized homosexual marriages there in the first place.
Ohio Marriage Amendment
While the citizens of Massachusetts witness this legal battle over same-sex marriage, the residents of Ohio have moved one step closer to being able to vote on a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. On Tuesday, the Ohio Ballot Board unanimously approved the 55-word proposed amendment to the state constitution.
Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who chairs the board, then criticized homosexual-rights activist Alan Malamed for suggesting longer wording, saying it was reminiscent of legalistic former President Bill Clinton.
Malamed accused Blackwell of not being neutral, noting Blackwell's support of amendments to both the state and U.S. constitutions. A spokesman for Blackwell says his boss does not hide his views on issues, but says the Ballot Board is bipartisan. He says if anyone disagreed with Blackwell, they would have voted against the wording.
Signatures supporting the amendment still have to be certified to allow the measure to be on the November ballot. The Ohio-based Citizens for Community Values (CCV), which managed the collection of those signatures, is expressing concern that opponents of the marriage amendment may attempt to invalidate some of the petitions in whole or in part. CCV points out that Ohio residents have already twice been denied an opportunity to vote on the matter when pro-marriage amendment campaigns were either stopped or delayed.
