New Hampshire Divorce Lawyer & Attorney : Crusco Law Firm : Family Law, Custody, Child Support : Manchester, New Hampshire, Massachusetts

When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued the Goodridge decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the Commonwealth, many people inside and outside the state became concerned about couples coming from other states to marry in Massachusetts. In the first few days of same-sex marriage, marriage licenses were issued to non-residents, and have resulted in decisions such as Chambers v. Ormiston which held that Rhode Island courts did not have jurisdiction to hear a divorce case between two people of the same-sex because the state did not recognize the marriage.   

However, Governor Mitt Romney quickly dusted off the Marriage Evasion Act M.G.L.A. 207 § 11. This law was enacted in 1913 and prohibits the marriage of a non-resident in Massachusetts if the marriage would be illegal in their home state. Governor Romney ordered town clerks to strictly enforce the law when handing out marriage licenses.

The original intent of the law is unknown for there is no record of the legislative history. However, the law was enacted during a time when the majority of states (30 out of 48) outlawed interracial marriage, and it is commonly believed that this law was meant to smooth relations between Massachusetts, which has allowed interracial marriage since 1843, and those states that banned such marriages. Massachusetts State Senator Harry Ney Stearns sponsored the 1913 Law on March 7, 1913 and the bill was signed three weeks later by Governor Eugene N. Foss

On July 15, 2008 the Massachusetts Senate voted to approve a bill that will repeal the 1913 law and the House is expected to vote in the near future. Repealing the law paves the way for out-of-state same-sex couples to marry in Massachusetts. Opponents argue that repealing the law meddles in the internal affairs of other states, forcing them to recognize gay marriage, and creates a legal limbo for families. On the other hand, proponents argue that the law should be repealed as a “vile and antiquated remnant of prejudice and bigotry.”

How will the repeal of this bill affect New Hampshire residents? As previously discussed on this blog, New Hampshire allows civil unions and recognizes out-of-state marriages as civil unions. If the Massachusetts house votes to repeal the law, New Hampshire residents may marry in Massachusetts, and return home to have their marriage recognized as a civil union.

There are many in-depth articles chronicling the path of Massachusetts in repealing this law and its effect on same-sex marriage. Some of these articles are below:

·         A 1913 Law Dies to Better Serve Gay Marriages

·         Will the State of Massachusetts Ever Permit Same Sex Out-of-Staters to Marry?

·         Massachusetts Senate Votes to Repeal Law Barring Out-of-State Couples From Marrying

·         Senate Votes to Repeal 1913 Law

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Today the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an opinion in the case of Charron v. Amaral that held that marriage benefits for same-sex couples do not apply retroactively to the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health  decision.

The case involves a couple, Michelle Charron and Cynthia Kalish, who began dating in 1990, moved in together in 1992 and subsequently bought a house together and had a child that both partners adopted. The couple also exchanged rings in a private ceremony in 1994 and obtained a marriage license in 2004 on the first day such licenses were available to same-sex couples. Charron sought treatment for a lump in her breast in 2002, was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2003 and died in 2006. The claim arose as a malpractice case for loss of consortium.

The plaintiffs argued that, but for the ban on gay marriage, they would have been married at the time the malpractice claim arose in 2002, and therefore the loss of consortium claim should be applied retroactive to the Goodridge decision. The SJC disagreed, and held that it was clear that Goodridge was intended to apply prospectively because it was such a radical change in the law that it required time for the legislature to act. Furthermore, the court found that:

to allow Kalish to recover for a loss of consortium if she can prove she would have been married but for the ban on same-sex marriage could open numbers of cases in all areas of law to the same argument.

Although this case involves a malpractice/loss of consortium claim, the opinion has ramifications for divorce matters in Massachusetts. It is likely that, as a result of the Charron decision, same-sex couples who are divorcing will be barred from arguing that but for the ban on same-sex marriage, the couple would have had a long term marriage retroactive to Goodridge. The difference between a long term marriage and a short term marriage can have ramifications on the property division and alimony awards.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Today the California Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage in a 4-3 ruling. The court’s ruling stated that “the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes.” Instead, the question the Court answered was whether the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage instead of the state recognized domestic partnership violates the California Constitution. The Court found that it did.

The decision and its dissents is 172 pages, so there is a lot to digest. I will post more after I have been able to  read through it in full. In the meantime, to read the opinion yourself, you can find it here. There are also posts through the blogosphere today on the issue, including here at Steven Ballard's Massachusetts Divorce & Family Law Blog, here at Family Law Prof Blog, and here at Jeffrey Lalloway's California Divorce and Family Law Blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As tax season is now behind us, many same-sex couples may have discovered that same-sex couples often pay higher taxes because they are not entitled to federal tax benefits regularly given to married couples. Additionally, same-sex couples must file separate federal returns and in most states, separate state returns. States that recognize civil unions or marriage for same-sex couples, such as Massachusetts, may file joint state returns. Here in the Live Free or Die state where we do not have an income tax, couples do not file state tax returns. 

Kevin R. McMurdy's recent post on Tax Implications and Civil Unions on the Employee Benefits Law Blog reviews various tax implications and employee benefits for same-sex couples.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks