(Massachusetts General Laws Ann. ch. 207 section 2)
Polygamy
A marriage contracted while either party thereto has a
former wife or husband living, except as provided in section
six and in chapter two hundred and eight, shall be void.
(Massachusetts General Laws Ann. ch 207 § 4)
Foreign marriages; validity
If any person residing and intending to continue to reside
in this commonwealth is disabled or prohibited from contracting
marriage under the laws of this commonwealth and goes into
another jurisdiction and there contracts a marriage prohibited
and declared void by the laws of this commonwealth, such
marriage shall be null and void for all purposes in this
commonwealth with the same effect as though such prohibited
marriage had been entered into in this commonwealth.
(Massachusetts General Laws Ann. ch. 207 section 10)
Lawsuit by two Massachusetts citizens to force town clerks
to stop issuing marriage licenses to non-resident same-sex
couples, in violation of Massachusetts law. A motion to
dismiss and a motion to consolidate with Johnstone
and Cote-Whitacre were filed. However,
Consolidated lawsuits by town clerks and non-resident
same-sex couples to invalidate the law prohibiting clerks
from issuing marriage licenses to non-residents who may
not marry in their home states. The court denied the plaintiffs’
motions for a preliminary injunction on the ground that
the law is constitutional.
GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders) sought
a declaratory judgment that same-sex couples have a constitutional
right to marry under the Massachusetts equal protection
and due process clauses. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court ruled that excluding same-sex couples from marriage
violated the Massachusetts Constitution. The Court redefined
what it recognized to be the centuries-old definition
of marriage “to mean the voluntary union of two
persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others.”
Massachusetts began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex
couples on May 17, 2004.
Art. 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution prohibits an
initiative amendment that reverses a judicial decision.
The question in this case is whether the marriage amendment
initiative "reverses" Goodridge, and is thus
prohibited by Art. 48. On July 10, 2006 the Court ruled that the marriage amendment initiative did not reverse a judicial decision and allowed it to be put on the ballot.
Direct action in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to compel the Senate President to hold a vote on the Marriage Initiative Amendment in the current General Court (the combined legislative assembly sitting as a constitutional convention). The Amendment was certified to the General Court with a record number of signatures. Art. 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution requires that a joint session of the General Court consider and vote "yea or nay" on each initiative amendment, before the conclusion of the legislative term. The current General Court has voted twice to recess without voting on the Amendment, and public statements of legislators indicate they will let the sole remaining day of the legislative session expire without such a vote. In the alternative, the suit asks the Court to compel the Secretary of the Commonwealth to place the Amendment before the voters despite the General Court's refusal to vote on it.
On December 13, 2006, the marriage amendment sponsors, VoteonMarriage.org, filed a federal lawsuit against 109 Massachusetts State legislators who, in a concerted effort to kill the petition, repeatedly delayed to vote on the amendment. On January 2, 2007, under significant legal and political pressure, the Massachusetts State Legislature finally voted. As a result, 62 lawmakers voted in favor of advancing the amendment, while 134 voted against it. This procedural hurdle only required 50 votes in the state's 200-member Legislature to put the measure on the statewide ballot. VoteonMarriage.org voluntary dismissed the lawsuit in light of the favorable vote. Unfortunately, the legislature voted the amendment petition down on June 14, 2007 by a vote of 45 to 151.
