
A 1913 law preventing out-of-state gay and lesbian couples from tying the knot in Massachusetts may be repealed next week.
The antiquated law has its roots in racial bigotry -- it was originally designed to prevent interracial couples from dodging the laws in their state of origin and marrying in Massachusetts. It was quickly forgotten once interracial marriages were federally legalized.
Ninety-one years later, gay rights advocates celebrated when the Massachusetts supreme judicial court legalized same-sex marriage in 2004.
According to Marc Solomon, executive director of gay rights advocacy group Mass Equality, it was at that point that the 1913 law was “dusted off by Governor Romney in his quest to reduce the number of same-sex marriages performed [in Massachusetts].”
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney used the law, which had never been repealed, to prevent out-of-state gays and lesbians from traveling to the Bay State to wed.
May of this year marked another marriage celebration -- this time for California, which legalized same-sex marriage on May 15.
The groundbreaking decision took civil rights one step further: California had no residency requirement for the marriages. Tourists flocked (and continue to flock) to the West Coast to get hitched, bringing with them new wedding revenue, with no end in sight.
For Solomon, California’s court decision was “a wake-up call -- we have one piece of unfinished business: to eliminate the residency requirement.”
New York governor David Paterson has instructed the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, so some might wonder why Massachusetts hasn't recognized out-of-state marriages yet. Solomon is not worried, though. “We have the strong support of the senate speaker, the house speaker, and the governor [Deval Patrick].… I think the outcome is going to be favorable.” (Hannah Clay Wareham, The Advocate)
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
Be the first to comment on this story.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.