Additional Titles











Other News Worthy Articles:

"United" Way Breaks Faith With America

The End of the Boy Scouts in Philadelphia

US Sovereignty Vote Survey: We're Still at Risk

Waging War On The Lunchbox

Vikings Within The Village

America's Green Fifth Column

More News








David M. Bresnahan
Posted; 1:05 AM Eastern

April 1, 2006

The last time the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled on homosexual, same sex marriages in 2003 it prompted 11 states to pass laws that specifically ban the practice, and now the latest ruling is sure to have a similar impact in other states, and delivers a major slap in the face to homosexual activists.

On March 30, 2006 Massachusetts ruled that couples from other states cannot come to Massachusetts to get married if the state they live in does not permit same sex couples to marry, but the court left the door open with a loophole other states will be likely to rush to shut.

In a 38-page decision, the court upheld a 1913 state law that forbids nonresidents from marrying if their union would not be recognized in their home state.

Conservative Republican Governor Mitt Romney supports the ruling, saying, "We don't want Massachusetts to become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage."

"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" he added. Romney is widely believed to be planning a run for U.S. President.

Thanks to Massachusetts, state after state has ruled for traditional marriage, and the latest ruling has given motivation for the rest of the country to take action as well.


The SJC said the 1913 law does pass constitutional muster and negates the marriage of five same-sex couples from Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, because same sex marriage is expressly prohibited in those states.

However, the court stopped short regarding the Massachusetts marriage ceremonies for couples from New York and Rhode Island, stating that same-sex marriage is not explicitly prohibited in those states.

In other words, there is no law to allow homosexuals to marry in those states, but there is no specific language to ban such marriages either. So, in the eyes of the Massachusetts court, that is reason enough to permit couples from those states to marry in ceremonies in Massachusetts.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

This means that there will be a rush by legislators across the nation to add "explicit" language to their existing laws to make clear that homosexuals may not marry. Once again the vast majority of the U.S. will be motivated to take action to be certain that what is happening in Massachusetts cannot happen elsewhere.

Expect homosexual activists to make a lot of noise, but in the end this latest defeat for homosexual marriage is certain to lead to a string of defeats in one state after another.

� 2006 - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

David M. Bresnahan has over 30 years of experience as an award-winning journalist, broadcaster, radio station owner, talk show host, and business owner. David has been a prominent writer for many Internet newspapers.

Web Sites:

For radio interviews or comments:
[email protected]













In a 38-page decision, the court upheld a 1913 state law that forbids nonresidents from marrying if their union would not be recognized in their home state.