...

[judecorp]

Well, that's it. One more Constitutional Convention and the damned marriage amendment goes to popular vote in 2008. I am ready to throw up. I mean, really - the same senators and representatives will be in office at the next ConCon so it's not like anything is going to change. My peeps voted against, of course, but that won't change anything when my marriage license is invalid and I have to take my wife off of her child's birth certificate.

Sometimes I really hate people. Like, a lot. Because they must really, really hate me, Jen, and Frankie.

Comments

[eeka13.livejournal.com]

The proposed amendment doesn't invalidate current marriages.

[cfred.livejournal.com]

Disregard my point #2, below, then.

It still blows chunks, though.

[skreeky]

Are you sure? Not that I've consulted a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure it does. It's not a law about who can and can't get married from here on out, it's defining any non-hetero marriage out of existence. Like what would happen if you found out your spouse was a polygamist, or was underage, or your sibling. Annullment. Never happened.

On the other hand, it doesn't make much sense that it would retroactively change a birth certificate. As long as gay couples can adopt together, Frankie shouldn't be different from that. What the marriage automatically does is that Jenn doesn't have to fill out adoption paperwork in order to get on the birth certificate. The worst I can see happening there is that Jenn would then have to go and formally adopt Frankie. I believe we are still that liberal around here. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

The latter makes the situation suck less rather in the way that a 9.5 earthquake sucks less than a 9.8 earthquake, mind you.

[skreeky]

(Actually, my husband is with you on this, and insists that he's read at least 3 places today that it doesn't affect current marriages, but I don't see how on earth it wouldn't.)

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Yes, we could go through the process of second-parent adoption so that Jen can legally parent her own child. We were planning to go through the process anyway to secure her rights in other states. BUT.

When two people are married and a child is born in the midst of that union, the married people are de facto parents unless determined otherwise. (It's actually kind of a pain to name someone else, say, as a kid's father if you're married to some other guy.) So being legally married means that we can write Jen on the birth certificate right at birth instead of waiting for a social worker to prove that she is acceptible so we can alter the existing birth record.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I honestly don't see how that could be possible. It would define who can and cannot be in a marriage, and we would no longer fit that definition. I mean, it would state that for the purpose of the Commonwealth, "marriage" would exist for one man and one woman. So while they can't officially tear our document up, I don't see how it could continue to be valid.

Of course I'd love to be shown otherwise.

[prettyvacantone.livejournal.com]

*hugs* :*(

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Sad. :(

[cfred.livejournal.com]

They can retcon marital status like that?

1. That just blows chunks.

2. I hope it doesn't happen, but if it does, do the math, and if it proves advantageous to refile tax returns with changed marital status in Mass., do so. (It's about the only way to stick the government in this case, and they deserve it.)

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Well, they did when those individual cities around the country started handing out marriage licenses... they just took them back.

We are in such a tax nightmare as it is. We file joint for a state return and then have to recalculate everything because we're required to file single for the feds. Which really makes me feel like I'm committing major tax fraud because we're not single.

As an accountant, what do you suggest?

[jodied.livejournal.com]

Today was the end of the 05-06 legislative session. The senators and reps that we voted in in November will be in session for the next ConCon.

It still blows.

[skreeky]

And we did gain some seats, but not 12.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but most of the folks are the same. At the very least, I doubt 13 baddies will be on their way out. Do you think that's true?

Can't the governor just veto this ridiculousness?

[sassywoman.livejournal.com]

Oh, that really pisses me off. And to think you're in one of the most liberal states ... I HATE our government sometimes.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I know, right? If we end up with a constitutional amendment HERE, I don't know where it can be possible to have marriage equality.

Nope, you're stuck with her.

[skreeky]

AHA! Jeez Louise it's hard to find the actual text of the bloody thing, but I finally did. The amendment reads thus:

“When recognizing marriages entered into after the adoption of this amendment by the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define marriage only as the union of one man and one woman.”

So Jude honey, I'm afraid you're still stuck with Mrs. Jude after all no matter what the old white men decide next year.

Re: Nope, you're stuck with her.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Well, that's both comforting and scary. I doubt, though, that the populus will make the distinction between us legal pre-amendment queers and those other deviants.

I wonder if there will be a big marriage boom if the whole thing goes down, so people can sneak in under the wire.

[estrange.livejournal.com]

That sucks, I'm sorry :(

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Yeah, me too. I just wish this could be a non-issue finally.

[violacat.livejournal.com]

Have you seen Deval's statement on this whole travesty? If not, here it is.

I believe that adults should be free to choose whom they wish to love and to marry. The SJC's decision in Goodridge affirms that basic human right, and I support it.

Above all, this is a question of conscience. Using the initiative process to give a minority fewer freedoms than the majority, and to inject the state into fundamentally private affairs, is a dangerous precedent, and an unworthy one for this Commonwealth. Never in the long history of our model Constitution have we used the initiative petition to restrict freedom. We ought not start now.

For practical reasons as well, it's time to move on. Whatever one's views of marriage equality, all can agree that we have far more pressing issues before the Legislature and the Commonwealth. It serves no public interest to focus more time and attention on this issue when there are under-served and under-performing schools, an infrastructure showing signs of sustained neglect, gun and gang violence on the rise, jobs and people leaving the state, a growing homeless population, soaring health care costs, a looming deficit and a score of other serious challenges crying out for the attention and the creativity of the government and the people. We cannot in good conscience ask these unmet needs to wait while a few individuals try to insert discrimination into our Constitution.

I favor ending this petition initiative promptly. If adjournment can accomplish that, so be it. If the Constitutional Convention chooses to vote on the merits, I want to be utterly clear that I believe a vote to advance this question to the 2008 ballot is irresponsible and wrong. Given the significant challenges we face on so many other fronts, I would be deeply disappointed in such a vote. It would do nothing more than condemn us all to more years of debate and expense on a matter that is legally and practically settled.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I am so in love with him.

[(Anonymous)]

WBUR said with the new crop of legislators coming in the margin of anti-marriage legislators will be reduced from 12 to 5 and with the new governor the marriage equality people are feeling very hopeful. i believe they used the phrase "Patrick now has Romney's ability to strong arm" and it looks like he plans to use it. thankfully they cannot invalidate the marriages that have taken place, but this whole thing just sucks huge!

tiffany

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I really hope Patrick can do something. Because going from 12 to 5 will be good, but not good enough... so we need SOMETHING.

I have such high hopes for Deval Patrick.

[smurfbrother.livejournal.com]

The ProJo today specifically said current marriages won't be invalidated, and indeed legally they can't be - that'd be an ex post facto law, specifically prohibited by the US Constitution.

The cities who granted marriage licenses were declared null and void because a city can't grant a marriage license - that's specifically a state power, so those mayors were definitely acting outside their authority.

Doesn't make this whole development suck any less, though.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Yeah, well, it's mildly comforting to thing of the ex post facto business but I don't hold too much faith in things that are supposed to be guaranteed by the US Constitution, since the Full Faith and Credit clause is supposed to guarantee my marriage in all 50 states as it is... and that sure ain't happening.

So really, I will just wait and see what happens and hope to be pleasantly surprised.