A Massachusetts ruling, according to the New York Times, will prevent out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Law currently “forbids nonresidents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state.” It requires that couples who seek a marriage license in Massachetts intend to reside in Massachusetts if their union would not be otherwise recognized in their home state(s).
“Gov. Mitt Romney applauded the ruling… ‘It’s important that other states have the right to make their own determination of marriage and not follow the wrong course that our Supreme Judicial Court put us on.'”
And it’s the type of political competition and experimenting that we ought to have in this nation. If New Jersey won’t allow same-sex marriage, move to Massachusetts. If Utah wants to be a dry state, and you want to drink, move elsewhere. If Michigan wants to allow unions to operate the “closed-shop,” and you’re looking for a job, go South of the Mason-Dixon line. I see no legitimate state interest in precluding certain people from marriage, but that’s another argument; I don’t think that there’s a compelling argument to prevent people from doing any number of things when it comes to their private life. But, that said, small government is better than big government – the dispersal of powers ensures and fosters diversity. All people should have options when it comes to their private life – these matters should not be nationally legislated.
So, I ought to be applauding this Moral Victory for Federalism – for States’ Rights, if you will? I’d ask for a dissenting opinion, but I’d rather provide it myself. I’ve told you why I like the ruling, I’ll be back later to explain why the same ruling is horseshit.