The murmur of the snarkmatrix…

August § The Common Test / 2016-02-16 21:04:46
Robin § Unforgotten / 2016-01-08 21:19:16
MsFitNZ § Towards A Theory of Secondary Literacy / 2015-11-03 21:23:21
Jon Schultz § Bless the toolmakers / 2015-05-04 18:39:56
Jon Schultz § Bless the toolmakers / 2015-05-04 16:32:50
Matt § A leaky rocketship / 2014-11-05 01:49:12
Greg Linch § A leaky rocketship / 2014-11-04 18:05:52
Robin § A leaky rocketship / 2014-11-04 05:11:02
P. Renaud § A leaky rocketship / 2014-11-04 04:13:09
Jay H § Matching cuts / 2014-10-02 02:41:13

Matt-rimony
 / 

The MA Ruling:

What did the court actually do?: The Massachusetts Supreme Court court said to the state legislature, and I quote, “This whole only-straight-people-get-the-pretty-cake business is a load of bull-honky.” They gave the legislature 180 days to create a civil marriage status for gays with the exact same legal rights and privileges as heterosexual marriage.

What could happen next?: The Mass. legislature has two choices

November 19, 2003 / Uncategorized

3 comments

Matt says…

I almost forgot

Robin says…

Dude, Kringle owes you cash, too??

But seriously, great explanation. One more question: What is it that makes Vermont’s civil unions un-exportable? Is there a clause that says, “Offer only valid in VT”?

Matt says…

Mostly, the portability thing is due to the label. Because “civil unions” only exist in Vermont, no other state is required to recognize them. And they carry none of the federal benefits, privileges, or responsibilities accorded to “civil marriage.” Check here for more.

The snarkmatrix awaits you

Below, you can use basic HTML tags and/or Markdown syntax.