Date post: | 25-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | luke-lewis |
View: | 218 times |
Download: | 2 times |
Massachusetts Registry of Vital Records and Statistics
June, 2007
Extending Marriage Benefits to
Same-Sex Couples:
Massachusetts 2004-2007
The NAPHSIS/NCHS CollaborationPast Successes and Future Challenges
Salt Lake City, UT June 3rd – 7th, 2007
On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) declared that "barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution.”
The entry of judgment was delayed for 180 days. On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts city and town clerks began accepting Notices of Intention to marry from same-sex couples.
What did the Supreme Judicial Court decide in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health?
The NAPHSIS/NCHS CollaborationPast Successes and Future Challenges
Salt Lake City, UT June 3rd – 7th, 2007
Were statutory changes made?
No. The legislature did not made any statutory changes to the marriage laws to facilitate the implementation of Goodridge.
The SJC preserved the marriage statutes, and refined the common-law definition of civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses to the exclusion of all others.
The NAPHSIS/NCHS CollaborationPast Successes and Future Challenges
Salt Lake City, UT June 3rd – 7th, 2007
Can a clerk refuse to issue a certificate of marriage to a person solely because that person intends to marry a person of the same sex?
No. The SJC declared that barring a person from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex would violate the Massachusetts Constitution.
The NAPHSIS/NCHS CollaborationPast Successes and Future Challenges
Salt Lake City, UT June 3rd – 7th, 2007
Notice of Intention of Marriage
Changes were made to the Notice of Intention form to help clerks implement the laws of the Commonwealth, including the SJC’s Goodridge ruling.Clarifications were made to inform clerks of impediments to marriage for all marriage applicants, not just same-sex.
The NAPHSIS/NCHS CollaborationPast Successes and Future Challenges
Salt Lake City, UT June 3rd – 7th, 2007
Items that were modified included:
Designation of applicants Where an applicant resides and intends to reside Civil unions and domestic partnerships Applicant’s sex Other items were modified to improve clarity – all impediments to marry must be equally applied and enforced, such as age, consanguinity and affinity, and laws of the state in which the parties reside.
The NAPHSIS/NCHS CollaborationPast Successes and Future Challenges
Salt Lake City, UT June 3rd – 7th, 2007
Sample FAQs
Q: What has changed on the Notice of Intention regarding the names of the
applicants? Answer: Where the previous forms say “Bride” and “Groom”, the revised forms say “Party A” and “Party B.”
Q: Which person should be “Party A” and which person should be “Party B”?Answer: That is up to the two people involved to decide. There is no legal significance to the choice of one title or the other.
The NAPHSIS/NCHS CollaborationPast Successes and Future Challenges
Salt Lake City, UT June 3rd – 7th, 2007
Q: What has changed on the Notice of Intention regarding where a person intends to reside?
Answer: Lines 6A & 14A now ask: “If not a Massachusetts resident, I intend to reside in: ________”
Q: Does a person have to be a resident of Massachusetts to get married there?Answer: No. There is no residency requirement
to get married in Massachusetts.
The NAPHSIS/NCHS CollaborationPast Successes and Future Challenges
Salt Lake City, UT June 3rd – 7th, 2007
Q: If a person does not have to be a resident of Massachusetts to get married here, why would we ask for his residence and intended residence?
M.G.L. c. 207, s. 11 (section 11) states that: “No marriage shall be contracted in this commonwealth by a party residing and intending to continue to reside in another jurisdiction if such marriage would be void if contracted in such other jurisdiction, and every marriage contracted in this commonwealth in violation hereof shall be null and void.”
In other words, if a person lives and intends to continue to live in another state or jurisdiction and cannot legally get married in that state or jurisdiction, her marriage “shall be null and void.”
The NAPHSIS/NCHS CollaborationPast Successes and Future Challenges
Salt Lake City, UT June 3rd – 7th, 2007
Q: Why enforce Section 11?Providing marriage to a couple when their marriage is “null and void” may have significant legal consequences:• The rights of children may be seriously affected;• The rights of spouses may be different than expected;• These issues may not be raised for years, such as in a wrongful death action, divorce, child support action, or estate challenge.
The NAPHSIS/NCHS CollaborationPast Successes and Future Challenges
Salt Lake City, UT June 3rd – 7th, 2007
Q: Why hasn’t anyone focused on section 11 before?All applicants have previously had to swear under the pains and penalties of perjury that there were no legal impediments to marriage. Until now, Massachusetts has not had significantly broader marriage laws than other states. As a result, there was little reason to think that people were coming to Massachusetts to avoid their resident state’s marriage laws.
At the present time, Massachusetts is the only state in the United States where people of the same sex may marry.
The NAPHSIS/NCHS CollaborationPast Successes and Future Challenges
Salt Lake City, UT June 3rd – 7th, 2007
Determining impediments
“Before issuing a license to marry a person who resides and intends to continue to reside in another state, the officer having authority to issue the license shall satisfy himself, by requiring affidavits or otherwise, that such person is not prohibited from intermarrying by the laws of the jurisdiction where he or she resides.” (G.L. c. 207, s. 12) (“section 12”)-A state-by-state list of all impediments was published for city and town clerks.
The NAPHSIS/NCHS CollaborationPast Successes and Future Challenges
Salt Lake City, UT June 3rd – 7th, 2007
Q: What has changed on the Notice of Intention with regard to a person’s sex?
Answer: Lines 22 & 23 ask a person to indicate: “Sex: Male Female”
The NAPHSIS/NCHS CollaborationPast Successes and Future Challenges
Salt Lake City, UT June 3rd – 7th, 2007
Certificate of Marriage
New fields: Sex of Party A Sex of Party B
Very minor modifications to rapidly implement change. The form is aligned exactly as the previous version, allowing city and town clerks to use existing procedures for completion and filing.
The NAPHSIS/NCHS CollaborationPast Successes and Future Challenges
Salt Lake City, UT June 3rd – 7th, 2007
Supplement to Notice of Intention of Marriage
Unchanged, except for labels “Party A” and “Party B”
The NAPHSIS/NCHS CollaborationPast Successes and Future Challenges
Salt Lake City, UT June 3rd – 7th, 2007
Affidavit & Correction
No additional changes --Marriage Records are “Point in Time” documents
Only provide data for those items collected in Massachusetts at the time the marriage occurred.
For example:•If correcting a record from 1916 do not include information on occupation or sex of party.
The NAPHSIS/NCHS CollaborationPast Successes and Future Challenges
Salt Lake City, UT June 3rd – 7th, 2007
Administration No segregation of
volumes by same-sex/opposite-sex
Continued to number & report all records in sequence
Access to all marriage records follow the same rules as always
The NAPHSIS/NCHS CollaborationPast Successes and Future Challenges
Salt Lake City, UT June 3rd – 7th, 2007
The State Registry and city/town clerks will honor a judicial order from a court
The State Registrar may refer novel legal questions to the Attorney General or may seek judicial clarification
Issues of ValidityThe State Registrar and clerks will not rule on the validity of a marriage.
The NAPHSIS/NCHS CollaborationPast Successes and Future Challenges
Salt Lake City, UT June 3rd – 7th, 2007
Later developments The Massachusetts Superior Court issued
a declaratory judgment in the Cote-Whitacre case that same-sex marriage is prohibited in New York and not prohibited in Rhode Island.
As of October 2, 2006, same-sex couples who reside in Rhode Island are permitted to marry in MA.
A proposed Constitutional Amendment is still on the table.
The NAPHSIS/NCHS CollaborationPast Successes and Future Challenges
Salt Lake City, UT June 3rd – 7th, 2007
Number of Massachusetts marriage records received and recorded from May 17, 2004 through April, 26, 2007
Year Male/Female
Male/Male
Female/Female
Total
2004 (5/17-12/31) 27,196 2,176 3,945 33,317
2005 37,447 736 1,324 39,507
2006 36,148 537 890 37,575
2007 3,873 37 50 3,960
Total Same-sex marriages to date: 9,695
The NAPHSIS/NCHS CollaborationPast Successes and Future Challenges
Salt Lake City, UT June 3rd – 7th, 2007
Percent of Massachusetts marriage records received and recorded from May 17, 2004 through April, 26, 2007 by Sex of Parties
Year Male/Female
Male/Male
Female/Female
2004 (5/17-12/31) 82% 18%
2005 95% 5%
2006 96% 4%
2007 98% 2%
Percents are rounded.