MA SC to out of state same-sex couples: Drop Dead

The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that non-resident couples who are ineligible to marry in their home states are ineligible to marry in Massachusetts, based on a 1913 law intended to prohibit interracial marriages.

http://www.cnn.com/...

Court limits gay marriages in Massachusetts
Same-sex couples from out of state can't marry if they don't stay

Thursday, March 30, 2006; Posted: 11:34 a.m. EST (16:34 GMT)

BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Same-sex couples from states where gay marriage is banned cannot legally marry in Massachusetts, the state's highest court ruled Thursday.

The Supreme Judicial Court, which three years ago made Massachusetts the first state to legalize gay marriage, upheld a 1913 state law that forbids nonresidents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state.

"The laws of this commonwealth have not endowed non-residents with an unfettered right to marry," the court wrote in its 38-page opinion.

Rethuglican Governor Mitt Romney crowed "We don't want Massachusetts to become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage."

This is based on a 1913 miscegenation law that had been unused for decades.  There are all sorts of laws like this on the books in Massachusetts.  For example, all men are required to bring rifles to church on Sunday.  What happens if you don't bring a gun to church on Sunday?  Are Jewish or Muslim men required to attend church on Sunday as well as going to a synagogue or mosque?

Will Mitt use the power of his office to arrest you?

•  It's sad but the court is probably correct

  that the state can enforce it iff they wish.

  Romney's out of there soon, and if the legislature wanted to they could have struck the law down.

  by tiponeill on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:21:30 AM PDT

  •  We end up with a lot of laws like this;

    how many states had bans on sodomy and oral sex that were only on the books because a) they'd been forgotten, or b) legislators would be too embarassed to bring it up in session?  Of course, the religious Right would occasionally dust them off to arrest gays, but seriously: our lawbooks are full of this old crap.

    Especially Louisiana.  Have you seen our code of laws?

    by pico on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:30:32 AM PDT

    •  Well, part of the problem

      with LA is that, unlike very other state whose laws are based on British common law, yours are based on the Napoleonic Code.

      Every state has some dumb laws. I recall that in New Haven Conn., you are forbidden to take a bath in the horse trough in front of the church on Sunday between 10 and 2.  Apparently at other times you could.

      by irishwitch on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:36:43 AM PDT

    •  why cant they ever...

      pass a law that mandates oral sex?

      by topicalstorm on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:39:30 AM PDT

      •  hear, hear! (n/t)

        by pico on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:48:12 AM PDT

      •  I've had a few man dates

        that involved oral sex.

        by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:53:32 AM PDT

  •  I agree

    This is not a case of activist judges making new laws anymore than the original case allowing the gay marriages was. They judges are just enforcing the laws as they are written and so I think that the ruling is fair. The people need to change the law if they think it is a bad law, which I agree it probably is.

    by amRadioHed on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:30:35 AM PDT

    •  Yes, but

      the Massachusetts sodomy law was itself struck down by the state's Supreme Court--way back in 2002.

      Note: It wasn't the legislature that voided the silly old law; it was the court.  The same court that won't void this silly old law.

      by corvo on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 12:23:13 PM PDT

•  You're right

  Laws should have a lifespan, if only because a law that made sense 100 years ago might not be appropriate today.  If it is still relevent when it is due to expire, then it can be renewed.

  by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:26:59 AM PDT

•  It's a law that's already on the books

  You can't really tar Romney with a law that's been on the books since 1913.  That goes back to before he was born, much less before he ever claimed Massachusetts residency despite having paid Utah taxes.   (MA people will remember what I'm talking about.)

  The Court is no longer in a position to determine whether the law is fair, only whether it is legal.  Determining what is fair is judicial activism, m'kay?

  by horsewithnoname on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:28:20 AM PDT

  •  You certainly CAN tar Romney

    it is a law which has been on the books, but completely unenforced for decades ( since segregation) - he purposely had it hunted down, dusted off, and enforced to bash gays.

    You can't tar the court, but you certainly CAN tar Romney

    by tiponeill on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:34:14 AM PDT

•  The SJC opinion

  is per curiam and remarkably brief:

  BY THE COURT. The orders denying the plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunction in these cases are affirmed. A majority of the Justices also agree that, as to the plaintiffs who reside in Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, a judgment for the defendants shall enter in the Superior Court because same-sex marriage is prohibited in those States. As to the New York and Rhode Island plaintiffs, their cases shall proceed in the Superior Court, on an expedited basis, for a determination whether same-sex marriage is prohibited in those States.

  You'll immediate note the absence of any rationale.

  There are two concurrences and one dissent (by Justice Ireland).  I don't have the time to read and report on them just now.

  
  
  

  by another American on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:28:28 AM PDT

  •  Ireland's summary of his dissent.

    I write separately for five reasons. First, I believe that an appellate court must use a neutral, principled approach to decide every case before it. Second, the court articulated such a neutral, principled approach in Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003) (Goodridge), holding that the liberty and equality provisions of the Constitution of Massachusetts prohibit the use of gender distinctions with respect to marriage. Third, Goodridge removed gender as an impediment to marriage (just as Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 [1967], removed race as an impediment), and I believe that the rule of gender neutrality applies to the entire marriage statute. Fourth, principles of comity do not require rejection of the marriage license applications of nonresident same-sex couples. Finally, the Commonwealth's resurrection and selective enforcement of a moribund statute, dormant for almost one hundred years, not only violates the "spirit" of Goodridge, as stated by the judge below, but also offends notions of equal protection. It is, at its core, fundamentally unfair.

    
    

    by another American on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:30:33 AM PDT

  •  Chief Justice Marshall's concurrence

    (joined by Cordy and, in part, by Greaney)

    The first principle of statutory construction is well known. We construe statutes according to the Legislature's intent expressed in the words of the statute read in light of "the ordinary and approved usage of the language." Hanlon v. Rollins, 286 Mass. 444, 447 (1934). Applying this established principle, I conclude that the word "prohibited" in § 12 refers only to marriages that are expressly forbidden by another State's positive law -– that is, by constitutional amendment, statute, or controlling appellate decision. See Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 1813 (1993) (defining "prohibit" as "to forbid by authority or command"); Black's Law Dictionary 1228 (7th ed. 1999) (defining "prohibit" as "[t]o forbid by law"). Where no "law," "authority," or "command" expressly bans an action, we cannot conclude that it is "prohibited." Thus, G. L. c. 207, § 12, plainly requires the Commonwealth to refrain from issuing marriage licenses to any out-of-State couple whose nuptials would be directly prohibited in their home State, and, conversely, to issue marriage licenses and solemnize marriages in all other cases. If the Legislature had meant a broader use of the term "prohibited," it knew how to make that intention clear. See, e.g., G. L. c. 65C, § 21 (e) (applying certain death tax provisions to "the estate of a nonresident decedent only in case the laws of the domiciliary state contain a provision, of any nature or however expressed, where the commonweath is given reasonable assurance" that it will collect death taxes from the domiciliary State [emphasis added]).

    by another American on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:34:19 AM PDT

  •  Translation please?

    Does, or does not, this decision affect marriages / civil unions in VT and NH?

    by FaithAndReason on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:16:52 AM PDT

    •  The decision has no legal effect

      in Vermont or New Hampshire.  But since both thse states apparently prohibit same-sex marriages, residents of those states may not marry in Massachusetts.

      
      
      

      by another American on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:24:21 AM PDT

•  Odd laws like this

  are littered in every state's lawbooks.

  (As a non-legal expert) I'd guess most states and courts ignore them until/unless someone (with an axe to grind) makes a federal case (or in this case, a "state" case) out of them.

  Sounds like the SC made the legally correct decision, but given the fact that same sex marriages are legal in MA, I don't think it would be too hard to get some referendum to overturn that old law.  However, I'm a quite a few miles removed from MA, so my take on the legal and social climate there is to be taken with a grain of salt.

  by Robert in WV on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:29:09 AM PDT

  •  i dont think its an odd law at all

    there is nothing odd in a law that says "if you can't get married in your home state, you can't get married here" to me

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:30:54 AM PDT

    •  Funny, the Loving Family would have considered

      it, if not "odd", certainly "bigoted".

      The SJC may be technically correct in it's decision, but that doesn't mean that the purpose of the law - both in it's original incarnation and now in it's resurrected form, was simply to discriminate against people.

      More than "odd".

      by tiponeill on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:39:25 AM PDT

    •  See the dissent above:

      Finally, the Commonwealth's resurrection and selective enforcement of a moribund statute, dormant for almost one hundred years, not only violates the "spirit" of Goodridge, as stated by the judge below, but also offends notions of equal protection.

      It's an odd law because it's been collecting dust on the shelf, one of those remnants of a former attitude towards a specific marriage issue that no longer exists.

      I'm not disagreeing that the other judges were 'technically' right, but I think Ireland points out the elephant in the room, which is the law's sudden reappearance and newly aligned enforcement.

      Otherwise agreed with everyone above that the best option is to strike the law from the books.  Much more permanent that way.

      by pico on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:43:56 AM PDT

      •  Sudden reappearence.

        Same-sex marriages have only recently arrived on the scene.

        Before that there was not much "opportunity" to use the old statute.

        by Samulayo on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 12:33:27 PM PDT

•  And its a correct ruling

  The state of massachusetts have no standing to overrule the laws of another state

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:29:18 AM PDT

  •  Quite the reverse;

    I won't disagree that it wasn't the "correct" ruling in the judicial sense, but if marriage of non-Massachusetts residents were to take place, it would require those other states to overrule Massachusetts' law, not the reverse.

    by pico on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:32:47 AM PDT

    •  no

      what it would be doing is saying "these people are married despite their home state's laws"  your thing is saying that a state has to claim "their not married despite the laws of a state that they're not even a resident of"

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:40:20 AM PDT

      •  No

        It would be saying "these people are married."  Massachusetts has to follow two sets of laws: those of the federal government and those of Massachusetts.  They are perfectly within their legal jurisdiction performing marriage to out-of-staters.

        It would require the home state to reject those claims.  Ergo, it would require the home state to overrule Massachusetts' law.

        by pico on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:45:46 AM PDT

        •  and this law

          makes it so that other states don't have to do that.

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:47:08 AM PDT

          •  Correct;

            although it's bound to come up eventually.  What we're seeing is part of a larger set of rumblings that will eventually lead to DOMA being challenged in front of the Supreme Court.  Probably still a few years down the road, but with a greater number of married gay couples, both in this country and internationally, the legal contradictions are going to continue bubbling towards the surface until the whole system is officially addressed.

            by pico on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:51:14 AM PDT

          •  So, in other words

            it's a copout on MA's part.  Why don't they force the issue to the SC?  It's going to wind up there sooner rather than later anyway.

            And dollars to donuts, my bet is that the SCOTUS will use the FF&C clause to strike down MA's same-sex marriages and ban them federally. Sure, that's legislating from the bench, but IOKIYAR.

            by FaithAndReason on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:42:24 AM PDT

            •  It is not a cop out

              The court could not ignore a reasonably briefed argument based on an existing statute. (Unless they determine that the statute was unconstitutional.)

              by Samulayo on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 12:37:57 PM PDT

  •  Except for the Constitution

    which requires states to honor one another's laws...

    Article. IV.

    Section. 1.

    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

    Full faith and credit, meaning if someone is married in Mass all states have to recognize it.  Should a Mass resident legally get married in a same-sex marriage and move, the other state has to recognize it.  Except they won't under DOMA which again is clearly unconstitutional.

    That said, the rulling was corect due to the law on the books, as old as it may be.

    by AUBoy2007 on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:38:41 AM PDT

    •  which has never really applied to marriage

      I dont know if there's been a supreme court case on it, but its been generally accepted that civil laws such as marriage aren't applicable

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:43:00 AM PDT

      •  Miscegenation laws

        Loving v. Virginia established marriage as a right, and struck down miscegenation laws on the books in several states.

        by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:46:53 AM PDT

        •  yes

          it struck down discrimination i marriage, at least by race.  it didn't, to my knowledge, require that states recognize marriages formed in other states, however.

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:48:10 AM PDT

      •  You are correct;

        the recognition of other states' marriage laws is purely by tradition.  I don't think it's ever been codified legally.

        by pico on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:46:54 AM PDT

      •  Generally accepted?

        By whom? I have to say, I've never once heard it said that civil laws aren't applicable.

        I'll let you know upfront that it'll take a whole hell of a lot (like a Supreme Court case) to convice me of that.  Being gay myself, I have a vest interest in this.

        by AUBoy2007 on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:49:57 AM PDT

        •  essentially

          the entire historic legal tradition of the united states has tended to believe that marriage is excluded.

          for some reading on it:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          The Supreme Court of the United States has long recognized a "public policy exception" to the clause. If the legal pronouncements of one state conflict with the public policy of another state, federal courts in the past have been reluctant to force a state to enforce the pronouncements of another state in contravention of its own public policy. The public policy exception has been applied in cases of marriage (such as polygamy, miscegenation or consanguinity), civil judgments and orders, criminal conviction and others.

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:53:17 AM PDT

      •  And hopefully won't apply to abortion either.

        n/t

        by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:59:54 AM PDT

        •  i'm not sure how it can

          since there isn't really any way to "not recognize" an abortion.  part of that clause is meant to say that you can't be found guilty of breaking a law in one state if you did the action in a state in which the action was legal.

          For example, if someone from outside massachusetts has a gay-marriage in massachusetts, and then moves to Texas, texas can't, say, arrest them for having a gay marriage, but they can refuse to recognize it.

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:02:50 AM PDT

          •  It could be applied if a state claims

            ownership of its citizens.  So South Dakota's ban bans it's residents no matter where they go.  Oddly, the Federal government has been attempting to assert this "ownership" over US citizens who have businesses overseas that are considered criminal in the US.  

            There is a particular case where two American guys moved to Antigua and set up an online gambling operation that was not regulated by the US gambling powers.  The operation was perfectly legal in Antigua and they were happy to have the money running through their banking system.  The feds did everything the could to shut down the operation, but failed every legal test of international law.  In the end, they managed instead to get warrants for both men's arrests in the event that they ever set foot in the US again on the premise that because they were US citizens they were subject to US law whereever they went in the world.  Again this was a warrant for a crime that was technically not committed by either guy because where they were running their business it was completely legal.

            So there is sort of a move towards state "ownership" of citizens - that is my term for it - that is quite unsettling.  The gambling story doesn't bother people - they ignore it because they don't care about gambling - but what if you're a doctor from SD and you are also licensed in ND and you decide to cross the border to perform abortions?  Will they assert that you are a murderer under their law?  I'll bet they try.

            by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:14:27 AM PDT

            •  A mixed blessing;

              after all, we'd want the Feds to be able to crack down on American businesses that exploit workers overseas, right?  Not that they do it.  They're much happier to go after gamblers in Antigua than sweatshop owners in Southeast Asia.

              by pico on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:36:38 AM PDT

              •  Yeah and the gambling outfit in Antigua

                employed a bunch of people and they were paid really well by island standards...

                Last I heard, one of the guys returned and he is sitting in jail waiting to fight this bs. It is wrong.

                by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 12:13:16 PM PDT

  •  Yes and no

    Yes, Massachusetts cannot overrule the laws of another state, but when a person is in the

    If the drinking age in Massachusetts were 18, and the drinking age in Vermont were 21 (in actuality, Vermont was one of the last states to raise its drinking age), a 20-year old Vermonter could drink in a bar in Massachusetts.  

    What this law is more the case of Massachusetts having a law on the books that out-of-staters could not buy alcohol in Massachusetts if they were under 21.

    Currently, if you are a married same-sex couple, this is legally binding only in Massachusetts.  It may be legally binding in New York, which doesn't prohibit people from crossing state lines if they are ineligible from marrying in New York.  

    But it is also a legal contract, and based on the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, a Massachusetts marriage license should (I didn't say 'is' - since it hasn't been ruled yet) be valid elsewhere in the country.

    by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:44:59 AM PDT

    •  What are you talking about?

      I was from DC where beer was legal at 18 and in school in New York and my DC residency didn't allow me to buy beer in New York.  In New York when the age was 19 it was 19 for anyone who visited (except of course in clubs in the city where no one cared about breaking the law).

      by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:02:34 AM PDT

      •  I could buy beer in Bennington

        when I was 19 and going to school in Albany.  

        by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:06:36 AM PDT

      •  The reverse:

        CrisisCorps is saying that if a NYer went to DC, s/he'd have been able to buy beer at 18, even though the state of home residency had set a limit of 19.

        In other words, DC wouldn't be breaking NY's law, because DC has jurisdiction on what takes place within DC.

        by pico on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:07:21 AM PDT

•  Tips appreciated

  Cheers. 27 responses so far.  This is the most responses for a diary I wrote.  Cool.

  by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:50:31 AM PDT

•  I don't think the the MA Supreme Court said

  "Drop Dead".  A bit of hyperbolee there to say the least. The legislature needs to change the law.  Don't beat up on the court that got you as far in your cause as it could already.

  by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:57:27 AM PDT

  •  I'm being a little melodramatic

    It was okay for the New York Daily News to do it.  :D

    by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:07:25 AM PDT

    •  Sorry I just thought it was inflammatory

      and knowing the source it makes perfect sense.

      by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:34:39 AM PDT

•  doesn't 'fix' all complications

  I agree with the other posters, that it's unfortunate that MA has this law and that to Governor has chosen to enforce it. But it doesn't solve all of the potential constitutional issues. What if Bob and Mike, MA residents, get married in Boston, and then in 3 months Mike gets a job in Austin and they move to Texas? The "full faith and credit" clause of the consitution would seem to suggest that the marriage is still valid in Texas, regardless of what laws the Texas legislature wants to pass. It's gonna be very interesting...

  by HarlanNY on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:57:36 AM PDT

  •  no

    full faith and credit doesn't apply to marriage.  Texas doesn't have to abide by massachusetts marriages, no matter what the circumstances of the marriage.  at least that has been the interpretation up to now.

    of course, some people are afraid that will change, thus why DOMA was passed.

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:59:22 AM PDT

    •  Wha????

      Or as the new state slogan here goes, "Say WA??"

      FFC most certainly applies to marriages.  I got married in AZ and now live in WA, having lived in UT, TX and OR in between.  There was never the remotest possibility that any of those states would fail to give "full faith and credit" to my marriage.

      DOMA was passed because wingnuts knew that states would have to recognize e.g. MA marriages.

      by FaithAndReason on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:13:38 AM PDT

      •  your marriage

        in Arizona is recognized in Washington because Washington chooses to recognize it, not because they are forced to recognize it.

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:18:14 AM PDT

        •  really? and what about federal laws?

          Are you sure about that, FAJ? Are their laws on the books of all 50 states explicitly recognizing the marriages of the other 49 states? Or is just assumed, based on the FFC clause?

          For tax purposes, say, I assume the federal government will have to recognize MA gay marraiges. Does that mean if a gay couple marries in MA, then moves to TX, their tax status automatically changes? That seems... bad.

          by HarlanNY on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:28:12 AM PDT

        •  Riiiight.

          And my continued existence in WA is because the state chooses to allow me to breathe, not because they are forced to.

          If any bureacrat in Olympia even thought out loud about challenging AZ marriages, the "sanctity of marriage" crowd would be on her ass before she could finish the sentence.  That argument is disingenous at best.

          by FaithAndReason on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:34:51 AM PDT

          •  Good (short) article about FFC and Marriage

            Hint: It does not apply to marriage.

            http://www.law.yale.edu/...

            by Samulayo on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 12:46:50 PM PDT

•  The judges were constrained

  There really isn't a recognized exception for ignoring really old and seldom enforced laws.  Since the government raised the law, the judges had to consider it.  

  by johnny rotten on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:59:02 AM PDT

•  Can't have that

  Mitt Romney crowed "We don't want Massachusetts to become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage."

  'Cause Vegas is suffering so greatly for its marriage policies.

  by FaithAndReason on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:18:22 AM PDT

•  So... You know when things are under your nose

  I'm really sorry, I didn't see your diary! I posted something real similar to it and now I feel pretty bad. I looked for diaries and everything and didn't see yours... which is embarrissing, mine was just under yours. Hmm... maybe they were posted around the same time?

  Anyway, I apologize!

  by Ryepower12 on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:24:43 AM PDT

•  Interesting commentary

  http://writ.news.findlaw.com/...

  Thanks to oblomov for posting this on another board.

  by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:53:16 AM PDT

•  This is awesome!

  "Only non-resident couples who come to Massachusetts to marry and intend to reside in this commonwealth thereafter can be issued a marriage license without consideration of any impediments to marriage that existed in their former home states," the court ruled.

  "Intend to reside..." Hmmm....

  I love it!!! My husband's job loss was a serious problem for our family. We're packing up and moving to Massachusetts. We'll run a gay wedding chapel and buy up some apartment complex or trailer park to start, so that newlyweds can move right in... The first few couples married can work for us, and then we'll start an employment agency, and some more housing developments... This is a fabulous opportunity!

  Massachusetts won't be the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage. People get married in Vegas and go back home, but Mitt's inviting people to reside in his lovely commonwealth. No longer known as the Bay State, it will be the Gay State!

  by jennifree2bme on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:56:28 AM PDT

•  Odd

  The MA SJC ruled the way they did in Goodridge because there could be no second class citizenship in MA.  Isn't that what this antiquated law does ... effectively make a whole group of people (out of state same-sex couples) second class citizens?

  by TLS66 on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 02:43:44 PM PDT