Hey look - good civil rights news!

[featherynscale]

Mass. Court Says State Can't Ban Gay Marriage

BOSTON (Reuters) - The highest court in Massachusetts ruled on Tuesday that the state cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, a ruling that could make the state the first to recognize gay marriage.

In a ruling posted on its Web site, the Supreme Judicial Court said the state of Massachusetts may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry."

Gay marriages are forbidden in the United States, although one state, Vermont, allows same-sex civil unions -- contracts that essentially provide most of the legal rights and protections of marriage but under a different name.

Comments

[zylch.livejournal.com]

Now they just have to get rid of that silly two-person limit.

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

That one's kind of a bitch though, legally speaking. I mean, can you imagine a divorce proceeding for a group marriage? Alimony? Child custody suits? Inheritance disputes? All fun enough with only two, but the law really isn't equipped to handle more than that. Geometric progression of complexity, I'd think

(Although I suppose you could extend the provisions of contract law to cover it... hrm... breach of contract suits are already brought in cases with a multiplicity of parties. You'd just all have to agree to hellacious pre-nups.)

I mean, I have no moral/personal objection to group marriage, but I can see a significant difference between it and gay marriage from the standpoint of the law, to the point where one could fit seamlessly into the existing legal structure and the other couldn't. Ah well. If they start working on it now, maybe in 20 years.

Until then, you're just going to have to choose between Drummel and kelafein ;)
*runs like hell*

[zylch.livejournal.com]

You better run, alright! Remember, I know exactly where you live, whereas you'd have to comb the whole city of Lawrence to find me.

I know that Joel, Deb, and Amy have been able to work out nearly everything that comes automatically with marriage through other legal means (Power of attorney, etc). The one kicker so far seems to be getting his insurance to cover them. I just think it's really stupid that they have been living for years in a way that would easily qualify as common-law marriage if it were only two of them, but instead they're denied (or forced to go through prohibitively complicated channels to get) the basic rights of married folk.

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

They're doing pretty well then if the only significant thing they can't get is insurance coverage. I know that a lot of states have phased out common-law marriage (I know that in Florida, you weren't counted as common-law unless you were eligible for common-law in the late 70s... thank goodness, really, otherwise I'd be married to a few people...), so even if it was just two of them, I'm not sure they'd be any better off in this regard without being legally married.

Pain in the ass, the whole "legal recognition of family" thing. Really exciting thing I found out a few weeks ago at the office - our life insurance and 401k benefits are set up so that if you are married, you cannot designate anybody other than your spouse as the beneficiary if you should die. Now I know that most people would prefer to leave their benefits to their spouses, but in my world you should at least get the option. Fortunately, that doesn't apply to me, and any of that stuff I should have is set to go to Khristoff, who could probably use it more than any of the rest of my family-of-choice. (Gods know my family-of-origin don't need it at all.)

[zylch.livejournal.com]

There may be other things they haven't been able to get, but I know that they considered insurance to be important enough for him to legally marry Amy so that at least one of them would be covered. They've also been working on this for at least three and a half years by now, where it takes about three and a half minutes to do a quick-and-dirty but still-legal marriage.

It just pisses me off that Joe Bob and Sallie Sue can "fall in love," get married, divorce after 6 months, fall in love with someone else, get married, get divorced, etc etc ad infinitum (or perhaps ad nauseum), and every damn time get all the benefits and protections that come with a marriage that they obviously don't value very much, while three people who are truly committed to each other have to go through hell to get even half that.

Heh, sorry. ::steppin' off soapbox::

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

Hey, you = preaching, me = choir. In a perfect world, you ought to be able to have a committed and recognized and protected relationship with anybody or bodies able and willing to consent.

All I'm saying is that where I could see no real compelling interest on the part of the state to continue to ban same-sex marriages, I can see compelling interest to continue to ban polygamy. And I'm betting that the surrounding system that would have to change in order for polygamy to become legal is probably not going to change anytime soon. I could be wrong. I'd like to be wrong. Just trying to see it from the perspective of a legislator.

[zylch.livejournal.com]

Just trying to see it from the perspective of a legislator.

Wow, you can get your head that far up your ass? I guess that yoga stuff must really work!

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

Hey, now. It's all about expanding your...notion of reality.