Thursday, May 06, 2004
Veiled Question

Willard Mitt flipped.

Until recently, the Fraud Governor had insisted that, in order to protect other states laws, he would insist that Massachusetts municipal clerks verify that gay marriage applicants prove in-state residency or be unable to obtain a Massachusetts marriage license. (source: Worcester T&G, 4/30/2004)

This, despite the fact that according to one prominent legal director, "non-gay people have been coming to Massachusetts for many years and marrying freely, even in the rare instances when their marriages would not be allowed in their home state." (source: Worcester T&G, 4/30/2004)

But Romney flipped. According to his legal counsel, while clerks are entitled to ask for proof of residency (as long as they require it of all couples, gay and straight) out-of-state couples who want to marry in Massachusetts will not have to show documents proving that they live here or plan to move here. (source: Boston Globe, 5/5/2004)

Oddly, Romney flipped days after his youngest son, who lived in Utah, was married in Massachusetts – to a woman who lived in Arizona! (source: Boston Herald, 5/1/2004)

Now we hate to stir up trouble, but we have to ask: is it legal for a former resident of Utah to marry a former resident of Arizona? And will the Romney's be living in Massachusetts, Utah, or Arizona?

Hmmm. The newest Romney’s were married in Belmont. Which means they most likely applied for their marriage from Belmont Town Hall. (And maybe used the same clerk who verified that Willard Mitt had maintained a valid voting registration during his hiatus from Massachusetts! (source: Cape Cod Time, 2/28/2002))

We hope the Belmont clerk checked the legality of marriage in the newly-wed's prospective home states. Because, as Romney’s counsel said, "the consequences of failure to abide by the law are just so great." (source: Boston Globe, 5/5/2004)


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?