

The Massachusetts house voted Tuesday to repeal a law that had prohibited out-of-state gay couples from legally marrying in the Bay State. By a count of 118-35, legislators voted down the 1913 law that nullified any marriage performed in Massachusetts that was not legal in a couple's home state. The state senate approved repeal earlier this month, and the bill will now hit the desk of Gov. Deval Patrick, who has pledged to sign it, within the next week.
Marc Solomon, executive director of MassEquality, said California's supreme court ruling to legalize the marriages of both in-state and out-of-state gay couples set the ball rolling to repeal the 1913 law, which he called "the last vestige of discrimination in our state marriage laws against same-sex couples."
Solomon said there were no protesters at the chamber, though several legislators spoke out against repeal, arguing that allowing nonresident same-sex couples to marry would create chaos in other states.
"It's ironic because that's the exact same language the proponents of the 1913 law used," Solomon noted, referring to the law that was originally enacted in 1913 to prevent out-of-state interracial couples from marrying in Massachusetts. "I think history has shown what a poor argument that is, and I think there's a real sense of pride that we were first [to legalize same-sex marriage]."
But overall, he said, the votes have been virtually nonevents in terms of opposition. "The message is that people in Massachusetts, as represented by their state legislators, are fine with gay marriage."
Solomon also had his own personal victory. While standing outside the senate caucus just before the vote a couple weeks ago, he unwittingly blocked the view of marriage opponent Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.
"He said, 'Marc, you're so darn tall, I can't see in front of you.' And I said, 'Kris, that's the way God made me,' " Solomon recalled, with a hint of glee. (Kerry Eleveld, 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.