The murmur of the snarkmatrix…

Jennifer § Two songs from The Muppet Movie / 2021-02-12 15:53:34
A few notes on daily blogging § Stock and flow / 2017-11-20 19:52:47
El Stock y Flujo de nuestro negocio. – redmasiva § Stock and flow / 2017-03-27 17:35:13
Meet the Attendees – edcampoc § The generative web event / 2017-02-27 10:18:17
Does Your Digital Business Support a Lifestyle You Love? § Stock and flow / 2017-02-09 18:15:22
Daniel § Stock and flow / 2017-02-06 23:47:51
Kanye West, media cyborg – MacDara Conroy § Kanye West, media cyborg / 2017-01-18 10:53:08
Inventing a game – MacDara Conroy § Inventing a game / 2017-01-18 10:52:33
Losing my religion | Mathew Lowry § Stock and flow / 2016-07-11 08:26:59
Facebook is wrong, text is deathless – Sitegreek !nfotech § Towards A Theory of Secondary Literacy / 2016-06-20 16:42:52

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

/ Reply
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”?

/ Reply
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.

/ Reply