I’m an ordained minister who performs weddings on the side (for free) for friends and family. I currently have 3 different gay friends who want me to do their weddings when and if possible.
Since two of them want to do this pretty much ASAP, I told them I’d try to find out if it’s even possible and if so, how.
Will it be as easy as hopping on a plane to Massachusetts and then doing everything like I normally would, or is it going to be considerably tougher?
So if you’re a minister in good standing, you may receive authorization to perform marriages in Massachusetts. However:
and:
So your same-sex couples would not be issued licenses in MA, if they were issued licenses in error the marriages would be void automatically and even absent these impediments Arizona would not recognize the marriages.
IANAL, and it would be best to consult one before doing anything.
Hmmm. That statute doesn’t specify how long one has to actually reside in Massachusetts to be considered a resident. There might be a legal way around the non-resident restrictions if one were to move to Massachusetts for just long enough to be considered a resident, get married as a resident, then relocate to where you originally resided.
I’m sure there’s a flaw there somewhere, and somebody will be along to point out what it is, but it might be a possible.
Eventually there’s going to be a case in which a legally married same sex couple relocates from MA to a defense of marriage state, and they challenge the DOM statute based on the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution. I can’t see how a DOM statute would withstand such a challenge, but unitl then, it’s going to be tough going for people who are in those states.
If you aren’t living in a DOM state, your friends appear to be ok according to the MA statute.
Enlighten me if I’m in error, but doesn’t a hetero marriage technically consist of two parts: civil union & religious union?
Since AZ is not likely to recognize the marriage in Arizona, no matter how legitemate it may be in Massachusetts, why bother with the legal junk and simply unite the couple under the higher law?
The flaw would be “…intending to continue to reside in another jurisdiction…” Moving just long enough to establish residency while intending to return to your original residence would IMHO trigger the statute.
Well mine sure doesn’t. But I agree with you that the next step queer couples should take is just having a ceremony and telling people you’re married, the law be damned. Of course, it’s not anything I’ve had to deal with, so what do I know.
[/QUOTE]
As for the Massachusetts law limiting marriages there to in-state residents, there are serious questions about its constitutionality, but that’s obviously an expensive and time-consuming fight that you’d have to wage before you ever get the licesnse.
Cisco, what church are you ordained in? I presume they allow you to perform gay union services. Our own church still hadn’t progressed that far and there are several couples in our congregation waiting for that day if it ever comes. Pay us a visit sometime, we’re on 7th Street and Camelback.
Probably so, but I do think an argument could be made the other way.
If they relocate to MA long enough to establish residency, they would no longer be residents of the original state. You cannot continue to do something are not currently doing. If they then relocate back to their original state of residency, they would not be “continuing to reside in another jurisdiction” because they would have previously ceased to be residents of that jurisdiction.
Of course, I have no doubt the states of MA and the other state would disagree, but the language does seem to allow for some hair splitting.
Seems to me it’s pretty simple: Even a lifetime MA resident can get married in MA, move to MO, and find their marriage is not recognized in MO. You’re splitting hairs about whether or not the marriage is legally recognized in MA. Moving to MA with no explicit goals of moving elsewhere gets around the statute, but so what? As soon as you leave, the license is void everywhere else, so what difference does it make outside of the Commonwealth, except for back taxes?
Marriage liscences are issued by state or county governments, so marriages that occur in one state are generally considered valid in all of the United States due to the full faith and credit clause of article four of the constitution:
Marriage, in the legal sense, is a contract, which is covered by “judicial proceedings” part of the clause, and marriage liscenses are public records. Generally, if you’re married in MA, you’re married everywhere.
The rash of Defense of Marriage laws enacted in the past couple of years was in direct response to the push in others to legalize same sex marriage. States already sanctioned only male-female marriages, but would have been forced to recognize same sex-marriages that occurred outside the state as a result of the full faith and credit clause. By defining what a marriage is, rather than simply who can get married, they hoped to be able to make an end run around article four. I don’t think DOM will be able to withstand a constitutional challenge, but until SCOTUS hears a case on it, any gay couple residing in a DOM state is out of luck regardless of what the law in the state they got married in is.
I may be wrong about this, but I thought the current conventional wisdom on the subject is that the Full Faith and Credit clause is a non-issue, or at least not a successfully arguable one.
Interesting article on the subject; brings up precedents like polygamy.
Interesting. It’s the supporters of the DOM amendment that are arguing that “full faith and credit” grants marriage status across state lines, while the opponents are arguing it’s entirely a state issue.
The two instances cited in that article both occurred before Utah was a state, and the second was a case of the Federal government forcing Utah to ban polygamy as a condition of becoming a state, so the issue of whether one state’s marriage laws had to be honored by others never really came up. In practice, the states have always honored each other’s marriage contracts, despite the fact that there have been very different requirements to them. First cousins can marry in some jurisdictions, but not in others, yet I don’t think any jurisdiction refuses to recognizes such a marriage once it occurs. The age at which one can marry also differs greatly from state to state.
I wonder if there are any cases of a mixed-race marriage being challenged in a state with miscegenation laws? This would seem to be a relevant precedent.
In any case, I don’t think the issue of whether “full faith and credit” applies to marriage has been settled, and don’t think anything short of a high court (state supreme or higher) ruling will settle it.
Perhaps it’s just wishful thinking on my part, but I still can’t see a DOM law standing up to constitutional scrutiny any more than a miscegenation law would.