![Massachusetts Supreme Court rules Vermont civil union equivalent to marriage](https://www.jurist.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/jurist-white-text.png)
![]() | ![]() |
[JURIST] The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Thursday that an individual who is party to a Vermont civil union must first dissolve that civil union before entering into a marriage with a different person in Massachusetts. The case concerns Richard Elia, who in 2005 discovered in the middle of his pending divorce that his spouse Todd Elia-Warnken had a preexisting spousal relationship in the form of a Vermont civil union with another man. Elia filed a motion to dismiss the divorce action on the grounds that he and Mr. Elia-Warnken had never been legally married. The Probate and Family Court [official website] granted the motion to dismiss and the SJC took the case on direct appellate review:
We follow “the general rule that the validity of a marriage is governed by the law of the State where the marriage is contracted.” … As such, we ordinarily extend recognition of out-of-State marriages under principles of comity, even if such marriages would be prohibited here, unless the marriage violated Massachusetts public policy, including polygamy, consanguinity and affinity. … Here, the initial question is whether we should extend recognition of the plaintiff’s civil union in the same manner as we would an out-of-State marriage under principles of comity.
Using “the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others” as its marriage definition, the SJC found that a Vermont civil union is the functional equivalent of a marriage, and therefore Elia’s Massachusetts marriage to Elia-Warnken is void ab initio. The ruling was hailed as a victory by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) [advocacy website; press release], which is representing Elia before the SJC.
Earlier this week Massachusetts officials filed documents [JURIST report] in the US Supreme Court [official website] challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) [text; JURIST news archive]. Attorney General Martha Coakley argued in her brief [text, PDF] that Section 3 of DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment as well as the Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8) [Cornell LII backgrounders]. On the same day, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman [official website] filed an amicus brief with the Court, supporting the case of an elderly New York woman who last week petitioned the Court to expedite her DOMA challenge [JURIST reports], which is currently pending appeal in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website].