« HB | Main | High Thin Wire »

More on marriage

| 10 Comments

Let's begin with the Boston Globe article about Sunday night, which starts with my favorite photo so far, two men kissing while standing in line, with matching haircuts and tinsel circlets.

There were apparently 10,000 people gathered in Cambridge by midnight on Sunday, and that was just the official police estimate.

A couple of descriptions by people who were there on Sunday night: Special Agency's Peter attended to celebrate, and a couple named Brian and Aaron applied for a license. Excellent writeups both. (Though Brian and Aaron seem to be under the impression that all 10K people who were there celebrating were straight; I'm not sure what would make them think that.)

Most of the news coverage I've seen from major news sources is kind of poorly organized. I eventually pieced together the idea that in most places in MA, the relevant offices opened at 9:00 a.m. on Monday morning, but in Cambridge they opened up at midnight Sunday night. Things were further confused by the distinction between applying for a license and actually getting one; MA has a three-day waiting period, so a lot of people won't be officially legally married until Thursday, but it's possible to get that waiting period waived (I'm not sure what the criteria are), so some people (including all of the plaintiff couples in the case that brought about legalization) did get officially legally married on Monday.

Here are a couple photo galleries:

  • Washington Post (though 2 of the 8 photos are of protestors, which seems a little odd given that I gather the protestor contingent was tiny)
  • Suspension of Disbelief (a fair number of the pictures are pretty blurry, but still nice to see, especially the six-photo panorama sequence showing just how big the Sunday-night crowd was)

Most of the news coverage I've seen so far is a hodgepodge of assorted tidbits from all over the state, usually under a headline that has little to do with most of the content of the article. But for what it's worth, here are some articles. The first is the from New York Times; the others are from the Globe.

I think that's enough for now. I'd still like to find more photos; I'm sure they're out there. Please post links in comments to this entry. (But if you're reading this on LJ, follow the link back to my journal first.)

10 Comments

From the news clips I saw, the waiver is purely financial, something like $175. One of the guys at the house I will soon be living in (whee!) was up in Cambridge until 4am Monday morning with the celebrating, I think, and it sounds like it was a blast.

I realised the other day that this will make the second year in a row that same sex marriages can take place at World Con, and I'm wondering how many will take advantage of it.


Yahoo has a slideshow that includes all sorts of photos related to the events (link off this news article).

Chief annoyance is that it's not restricted to photos from Mass.


Celia: good point re WorldCon; I hadn't thought of that. Cool!

Jon: Thanks for the pointer! I particularly like photo #31. I find it interesting, though, that almost all of the references to couples in this slideshow use the term "partner," even after the wedding has taken place; I think I've only seen one so far that uses "spouse," and none that use "husband" or "wife."


That's fascinating—thanks, Jennifer!

I'm curious as to whether anyone has confronted the MA governor to ask whether he's ready to enforce this law for different-sex couples as well as for same-sex couples.


In what situation might a law that "bars nonresidents from marrying in Massachusetts if the union would not be legal in their home state" be enforced for different-sex couples?


Don't know how I missed this before, but Human Rights Campaign has a slideshow, with an option for adding your own photo (if you are JMIM).

Warning: sniffle factor ... HIGH.

                           ,
-Vardibidian.


Awwww.... Thanks for the slide show, V! Cheered me up immensely, and made me much less distressed at having been woken up by heavy equipment moving somewhere in the neighborhood half an hour ago.

Shmuel: Well, different states have different marriage laws, and as I understand it, states have not traditionally been required by the Federal govt to recognize marriages performed elsewhere if they're not in accordance with the state's laws. I don't know whether MA has more lenient laws than some other states about things like age of consent, close relatives, and other restrictions on mariage, but it might; those things do vary from state to state. Does MA really want to be in the business of determining whether every marriage of out-of-state residents is legal in those people's home state? Note, btw, that according to that article Jennifer pointed to, the law in question was originally intended to prevent interracial marriages by out-of-state couples; that's no longer an issue, but that's the kind of thing that states' laws used to differ about. Also note that the governor's communications director Eric Fehrnstrom said: "This law is not Gov. Romney's invention.... This is the law of the land and the governor cannot pick and choose which laws to enforce." Which suggests that if there are any differences between MA marriage law and those of other states (and there are), Romney ought to be examining all licenses for out-of-state couples, not just the same-sex ones.


Yeah, I was going to mention the interracial thing in my original message, but didn't want to belabor the point that no such laws were now in effect... that said, the age of consent thing is a good point, an 18-year-old being good to go in MA, but requiring parental consent in NE. Which answers my question, thanks.


Celebrations!


Post a comment