Otter's Journal: Gay marriage -- *now* I'm annoyed!

Not that I was the world's biggest proponent of gay marriage (I would have gone with Vermont-style unions) but I certainly wasn't losing any sleep over it. But now I'm pissed off.

I live in one of the four Massachusetts towns that refused to check marriage applicants' in-state residency. (Reports are conflicting, but the mayor seems to have been requiring that forms be filled out completely but promising that the registrars wouldn't check if addresses were false. Wink, wink.) Today, in the local newspaper, we get stories and photos of all these out-of-staters chuckling about putting one over on Mitt Romney and The System.

WTF?!? Apparently the law is good when you're using the courts to shortcut the legislative process. And, of course, it's good when you're expecting people to abide by it regardless of how strongly they object to same-sex marriage or to the process by which it was imposed. But when it's inconvenient -- well, it's just something to wink at. Civil disobedience would be one thing (although still obnoxious while you're insisting on obedience from everyone else) but this isn't being framed as civil disobedience, merely as cynical contempt.

One gets the impression that for some people, the law is simply a club to use against those of us who are stupid or old-fashioned enough to respect it.

Update: also in the "Didn't especially care until now but..." category, and coincidentally worded:

Asked if it would be a nomination acceptance or merely a party address, Kerry winked and leaned back in his seat as his campaign charter jet flew from Hanscom Field to Dulles International Airport outside the nation's capital.

Wink, wink. Hey, Senator -- go to North Station and wink at your constituents there! I'm sure they'll share your amusement as they plan their mandatory vacations in July.

Your Journal

[Cokelee]

I have read your journal for quite some time now, and I now feel obliged to insert a "me too" comment.

Why fight for legal gay marriage if you're going to break the law anyway?

On a purely ideological post this is _very_ flawed.

Re:Your Journal

[Otter]

To me, it's just a matter of respect, you know? The anti- crowd has deferred to the courts, however strongly they disagree. It irritates me to see that respect for order and process exploited by people who entirely lack it themselves.

Re:Your Journal

[loucura!]

Well, from what I've heard on the media, at least one of the counties is disobeying the law because it isn't evenly applied to heterosexual couples.

Re:Your Journal

[Otter]

I explained it in more detail in another post here but, in a nutshell, no. The law is that Massachusetts doesn't serve as a marriage haven for unions not recognized elsewhere. It hasn't been enforced in recent decades because there was no need for it, but it isn't being applied unevenly now.

Even if that were true, though, I'd feel similarly. The pro-same-sex-marriage people have used the courts to impose this law on everyone, and they expect blue-collar Catholic communities and conservative farm towns to fo

Already happening?

[Oculus Habent]

Alright, I'm not fully versed on the new implementation of this law. I haven't read the court findings or transcripts of the state congress sessions. If I'm wrong, let me know.

I'm pretty sure that heterosexual couples wishing to be married have given invalid addresses in the past. My guess is that the address given has very little to do with anything, unless it becomes relevant during a police investigation. I highly doubt that this is a brand new violation opened up by homosexual marriage, just one that n

Re:Already happening?

[Otter]

I genuinely have had next to no interest in this subject and don't claim to be well-informed, but my understanding is this: Massachusetts has a law on the books prohibiting marriages that would be illegal in the couple's state of residence. When same-sex marriage was required, the state declared a policy of enforcing the law, to avoid massive crowds and confrontations with other states. At that time, the marriage license form was changed to include a statement of residency.

Arguably this is a silly law, a tr

Re:Already happening?

[Oculus Habent]

I got lost on the extended second sentence of the second paragraph. I'm pretty sure I understand your overall position, but am not sure what you just said. Would you restate?

Re:Already happening?

[Otter]

Yeah, I may have run that one on a bit. ;-)

My point is this: Janet Cambridge-Lesbian has been perfectly happy to deploy the court system against Farmer Bob, in complete confidence that Bob's respect for the law and the government trumps any objections he might have to its specific workings. But when it comes to Janet's out of town's friends -- well, respect for the law is an impediment for reactionary old coots like Farmer Bob, not for them.

Re:Already happening?

[Oculus Habent]

But you find that with nearly any law. Someone is always willing to bend or break a law for whatever reason, even while they expect others to respect said law.

I don't think it is right that town officials are making it known that they will accommodate the breaking of the law. Aside from that, I don't see this as being much different from other broken laws; it's wrong, and it should be stopped.

Cambridge, eh?

[LPetrazickis]

Janet Cambridge-Lesbian? Isn't Cambridge in Massachusets? Surely, you ought to be complaining about Janet Witchita-Lesbian instead.