A Massachusetts activist judge has taken it upon himself to expand Massachusetts legalization of gay Marriage beyond state borders. The following is from the Boston Globe:
A Superior Court judge ruled Friday that same-sex couples from Rhode Island hav...

Cross Posted from Yet Another Conservative Right Wing Blog: A Massachusetts activist judge has taken it upon himself to expand Massachusetts legalization of gay Marriage beyond state borders. The following is from the Boston Globe:
A Superior Court ju...

The interpretation is binding on Rhode Island

I see why you wrote that zany comment now. At first I thought this sentence was a typo - I mean, who would think that one state's ruling can be binding on another state? Well, Mass's ruling isn't binding. There are two ways in which the Full Faith & Credit clause won't force RI to recognize the marriage: first is statutory: DOMA carves out an exception for gay marriage. The second is judicially made: there's an exception for matters of public policy (and has historically been applied to marriage and family law).

I am trying to use a really horrific example to take the policy question out of gay marriage.

Actually, you're using a really stupid example to show that you have no idea what this about. The Mass decision has no effect on RI's law. All that's happened is that the Mass decision has given the potential plaintiffs alternate grounds for standing in a lawsuit challenging a county clerk's refusal to provide a marriage license.

Nothing in there because he apparently looked and didn’t find it.

How else is he supposed to tell if RI has banned gay marriage? Perhaps he should've called a psychic hotline?

At any rate, the ruling was fine. Mass laws forbids marriages when the parties' home state bans their marriage; RI has no laws doing that; ergo, they can get married in Mass. This is as simple a ruling as there can possible be.

The interpretation is binding on Rhode Island, but I do find a problem with another state deciding what a different states laws say. To take a really horrific example, imagine a man would dig up fresh graves and eat the flesh of the corpse was captured in another state. He appeals extradition on the grounds that nothing in the state law specifically precludes cannibalism. The judge looks it over and says that since he can't find anything in the state laws on cannibalism, he won't extradite. Is it really up to that judge to decide if the state could prosecute? Would you be happy as a resident of that state for the other state judge to make the decision? I am trying to use a really horrific example to take the policy question out of gay marriage. Remember, in this case the judge is ignoring the terms "bride" and "groom" when he looked at the state law. He is being careful in his words. Not that there was "nothing", but nothing explicit. The fact that the terms bride and groom have been around for longer than Massachusetts with specific genders attached is ignored because it wasn't "explicit".

Like the original court decision to find a right to gay marriage in a document that had been around a long time with no suspicion of that right being in the state constitution, I think what this will do is add more impetus to the pushes for anti-gay marriage amendments. You can't trust your state court judges to rule correctly because they may not even get a chance to rule on the subject. Given the overwhelming margins these amendments have been passing (in red and blue states) this may be a tactical victory but it is a strategic defeat.

Angry relatives of concertgoers killed in a horrific 2003 nightclub fire begged a judge Friday to ch...

But, as I said on my own blog (quoting the judge):

“No evidence was introduced before this court of a constitutional amendment, statute, or controlling appellate decision from Rhode Island that explicitly deems void or otherwise expressly forbids same-sex marriage,” he ruled.

What do you wanna bet that there will be by November?

I also like the way the Massachusetts judge is interpreting the Rhode Island constitution and laws. Nothing in there because he apparently looked and didn't find it. And people wonder why voters keep approving the anti-gay marriage amendments.