Finally, the Commonwealth is getting around to preparing for the expiration of the SJC's stay on issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. From
today's Boston Globe:
In the state's first official acknowledgment that gay and lesbian couples can legally marry in May, town and city clerks were notified this week that they will be trained to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples.
The clerks were given few details about the training, scheduled for early May, just days before same-sex couples can legally wed on May 17. It is the first signal that state officials are planning for gay marriage, despite Governor Mitt Romney's assertion that he is considering asking the Supreme Judicial Court to stay its decision allowing same-sex couples to marry.
There are a number of things going on along these lines:
State officials also are preparing forms, scheduled to be available by May 17, with gender-appropriate language for same-sex couples who request marriage licenses, Hutchenrider said. "The attorneys are going over them," she said.
And the registry is working on other new vital records forms, such as birth records, where language may need to be changed to reflect same-sex couples, she said.
[snip]
There are other unanswered questions. Normally, couples must apply for a marriage license three days before they can receive one, based on a state law that dates to colonial times. But couples who want to speed up the process can get a waiver for the waiting period from any judge in the state.
Clerks want to know whether same-sex couples could request similar orders from judges so they could get married as soon as May 17.
One issue that has yet to be resolved, though, is the status of out-of-state couples:
The primary unanswered question about the details of issuing marriage licenses to gay couples is whether couples who don't live in Massachusetts can be married here. Clerks say they are frustrated because they can't counsel out-of-state callers who want to marry in Massachusetts.
Currently, couples who want to marry are shown a list of legal impediments to their marriage, including whether they live in a state where their marriage would be void. Couples must then sign a form stating that their marriage would not violate anything on the list.
A state law from 1913 prohibits clerks from issuing marriage licenses to couples whose marriage would be "void if contracted" in their home state. No other state allows gay marriage, and 38 states have "defense of marriage" laws that specifically prohibit gay marriages.
Bonauto argued that forbidding out-of-state gay couples to marry in Massachusetts would "acquiesce to the discrimination" of other states. That section of the 1913 law, passed partly because some states then banned interracial marriage, has rarely appeared in state court decisions and therefore seldom has been interpreted by judges, she said.
The May 17 deadline is approaching. Romney and anti-marriage folks are rumored to be trying to figure out ways to not allow same-sex marriages to occur. One strategy being floated is to ask the SJC to extend its stay until after the public votes on the proposed amendment(s) to the Constitution. They are arguing that allowing the marriages to occur, and then (potentially) having them voided would create a form of "legal chaos". My reading, uninformed as it may be, is that the SJC would probably be unwilling to do so. I base this on some reading, and also the strong language contained in the advisory opinion issued in February. Who knows, though? Things are as fluid and unpredictable as they can be.
On another note, the ConCon reconvenes this coming Monday for the third reading of the current amendment (banning marriage and establishing civil unions that have all the same legal benefits). There is, of course, a lot of behind the scenes wrangling going on. Other amendments of varying forms are being floated. Alliances are shifting. It's gonna be a fun day [sarcasm]. If you're free on Monday and in the Boston area, head on down to the State House.