A 1913 Law Dies to Better Serve Gay Marriages

[Pint0 Xtreme]

NYT

A 1913 Law Dies to Better Serve Gay Marriages

Article Tools Sponsored By
By PAM BELLUCK and KATIE ZEZIMA
Published: July 16, 2008

BOSTON — Massachusetts may have been the first state to legalize same-sex marriage for its residents, but when California last month invited out-of-state gay and lesbian couples to get married, the potential economic benefits did not go unnoticed here. Now Massachusetts wants to extend the same invitation.
Skip to next paragraph
Lisa Poole/Associated Press

The Massachusetts Senate voted to repeal a 1913 law.

On Tuesday, the State Senate voted to repeal a 1913 law that prevents Massachusetts from marrying out-of-state couples if their marriages would not be legal in their home states. The repeal, which passed with no objections on a voice vote, is expected to pass the House later this week. Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat and a supporter of same-sex marriage whose 18-year-old daughter recently disclosed publicly that she is a lesbian, has said he will sign the repeal.

The repeal of the out-of-state marriage ban would come more than four years after Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay men and lesbians to marry, and same-sex marriage advocates said the timing was carefully calculated to catch the prevailing political — and economic — winds.

State officials said they expected a multimillion-dollar benefit in weddings and tourism, especially from people who live in New York. A just-released study commissioned by the State of Massachusetts concludes that in the next three years about 32,200 couples would travel here to get married, creating 330 permanent jobs and adding $111 million to the economy, not including spending by wedding guests and tourist activities the weddings might generate.

“We now have this added pressure, given what’s happened in California, that we really think that it is a good thing that we be prepared to receive the economic benefit,” State Senator Dianne Wilkerson, a Democrat who sponsored the repeal bill, said Tuesday after the vote.

Ms. Wilkerson added, “For me it wasn’t the most important basis of the argument, but it certainly is a perk.”

Legislators and same-sex marriage advocates said their primary motivation for the repeal was to allow all same-sex couples an opportunity to marry and to revoke a law that many saw as discriminatory. The law, believed to have been designed to uphold other states’ bans on interracial marriage, was invoked in 2004 by Gov. Mitt Romney, a same-sex marriage opponent who said he did not want to make Massachusetts “the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage.”

Kofi Jones, spokeswoman for Secretary Dan O’Connell of Housing and Economic Development, said: “The administration believes repealing this discriminatory and antiquated law is simply the right thing to do. The study does show, though, that this action could also bring some added economic benefits to the commonwealth, which would be welcomed.”

Ted Jarrett, owner of the Old Mill on the Falls Bed and Breakfast in Hatfield, Mass., which plays host to many same-sex weddings, said: “Obviously it would help us from a business standpoint. I kind of feel like there will be people coming in.”

Politically, the California decision and a decision by Gov. David A. Paterson of New York to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, gave supporters of same-sex marriage here the fuel they needed to press for repeal without fear that it would become a lightning rod in the presidential election, advocates said.

“We were collectively thinking about planning to wait until after the November elections because we were concerned that the far right, the Karl Rove types of people, would once again try to use this issue as a wedge issue in the campaign,” said Marc Solomon, campaign director for MassEquality. “Once the California decision happened and out-of-state couples could go to California, there was no reason not to move forthwith.”

Arline Isaacson, co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said that many lawmakers felt the California ruling made support for lifting the ban far less controversial, and that the economic argument did not hurt.

“Like other states, it’s tough fiscal times,” Ms. Isaacson said, “and everyone recognizes that this will be an economic boon for Massachusetts because every gay person who comes here to marry, most won’t come alone.”

She continued, “They will bring their families and their friends and all those people will stay at the hotels, eat at the restaurants, shop at the stores and hire caterers and florists and musicians.”

The study predicts that most of the couples — about 21,000 — will come from New York, nearly half of the 48,761 same-sex couples in that state.

Alan Van Capelle, the executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda, a gay rights group in New York, said that he could not speculate on the numbers and that “there are a certain percentage of people like myself” who will “wait till New York issues marriage licenses.”

But, he predicted “a lot of Jet Blue cancellations from LaGuardia to Laguna and some Amtrak purchases from New York to Boston,” adding, “Tanglewood, the Red Lion Inn, how do you say no?”

Mr. Van Capelle and other advocates said they expected the Massachusetts decision to galvanize efforts to persuade other states, particularly those near Massachusetts, to legalize same-sex marriage.

Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, said that in a few states “there may be some impact.” But, he said, citing the 26 states with constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage: “I wouldn’t say the other side is gaining momentum. I would say that the other side has just come up for air with the California ruling after a long period of regression.”

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said the repeal “will open up a Pandora’s box of lawsuits to challenge the marriage requirements in other states.”

Mr. Mineau added, “And one thing for sure, it will affirm the need for a federal marriage amendment.”

Sounds like people in the east may not have to travel all the way to California to get married after this gets passed.

[Resinence]

Great news, I bet the conservatards are fuming though

[Alyrium Denryle]

Great news, I bet the conservatards are fuming though

In futile fashion. NY IIRC recognizes out of state gay marriages now, and I imagine other stages will soon as well. Additionally, this gives us further avenue to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act.

[Kanastrous]

Maybe the angle to sell conservatives on this, is the money-to-be-made angle.

Throw enough cash into the pot, and virtually anything becomes moral, for those people.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Maybe the angle to sell conservatives on this, is the money-to-be-made angle.

Throw enough cash into the pot, and virtually anything becomes moral, for those people.

Reminds me of something Niel DeGrasse Tyson said. Republicans more than anything else, do not want to die poor.

[CaptainZoidberg]

Throw enough cash into the pot, and virtually anything becomes moral, for those people.

It's not like the Republican party is one monolithic block of fundamentalist, baptist, nationalist, businessman warhawks.

It's just that those blocks, largely separate groups of people, are all targeted by the Republican party.

[Darth Wong]

Throw enough cash into the pot, and virtually anything becomes moral, for those people.

It's not like the Republican party is one monolithic block of fundamentalist, baptist, nationalist, businessman warhawks.

It's just that those blocks, largely separate groups of people, are all targeted by the Republican party.

Actually, there are plenty of people who fit all of those categories at once, especially if you drop "businessman" and replace it with "pro-business".

[CaptainZoidberg]

Actually, there are plenty of people who fit all of those categories at once, especially if you drop "businessman" and replace it with "pro-business".

Yeah, there is definitely overlap. But your average Southern Baptist fundy probably has no real interest in regulations on the stock market, and only identifies as pro-business because that's what the businessman who they're allied with believe.

Likewise I've met quite a few people who vote for whoever will cut their taxes most, and just pick up the Pro-Life position because it's what their tribal alliance believes.

[Ender]

Any road forward I guess.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, there are plenty of people who fit all of those categories at once, especially if you drop "businessman" and replace it with "pro-business".

Yeah, there is definitely overlap. But your average Southern Baptist fundy probably has no real interest in regulations on the stock market, and only identifies as pro-business because that's what the businessman who they're allied with believe.

What the fuck difference does that make? He supports whatever the business leaders tell him to support; how does that make him not "pro business"?

Likewise I've met quite a few people who vote for whoever will cut their taxes most, and just pick up the Pro-Life position because it's what their tribal alliance believes.

Again, what the fuck difference does it make why you think they're identifying with and supporting all of these beliefs, as long as they do?

Despite your bullshit, there is a large group of loyal right-wing supporters who support the whole damned platform: the religious bullshit, the pro-business attitude, the callous disregard for the poor, the homophobia, and the warmongering.

[CmdrWilkens]

Any road forward I guess.

Its even a little more than that, take note that this was a voice vote. That means there weren't enough objectors or asshole Republictards to even force a recorded vote. Short of passing by unanimous consent this is about as strong as statement as possible that nobody gives a shit about the "evils" of gay marriage. If MA Republicans were still convinced there was anything to be gained by harping on gay marriage they would have forced an actual roll-call vote so they could lamblast democratic supporters...instead they let it slide with probably only the whisper neccessary to avoid unanimous consent.

[Glocksman]

Great news, I bet the conservatards are fuming though

In futile fashion. NY IIRC recognizes out of state gay marriages now, and I imagine other stages will soon as well. Additionally, this gives us further avenue to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act.

IANAL. but the 'full faith and credit' clause in the constitution lets Congress determine 'the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another'.

IOW, unless SCOTUS overrules it Congress was entirely within its rights to pass DOMA.

[Glocksman]

Actually, there are plenty of people who fit all of those categories at once, especially if you drop "businessman" and replace it with "pro-business".

Yeah, there is definitely overlap. But your average Southern Baptist fundy probably has no real interest in regulations on the stock market, and only identifies as pro-business because that's what the businessman who they're allied with believe.

What the fuck difference does that make? He supports whatever the business leaders tell him to support; how does that make him not "pro business"?

Likewise I've met quite a few people who vote for whoever will cut their taxes most, and just pick up the Pro-Life position because it's what their tribal alliance believes.

Again, what the fuck difference does it make why you think they're identifying with and supporting all of these beliefs, as long as they do?

Despite your bullshit, there is a large group of loyal right-wing supporters who support the whole damned platform: the religious bullshit, the pro-business attitude, the callous disregard for the poor, the homophobia, and the warmongering.

My two cents as a former Republican.
Most of us are willing to compromise to a point.
That said, I'm no longer willing to compromise my beliefs in the entire Bill of Rights solely because of the Repub scare tactics over the 2nd amendment while they piss all over the remaining 9 amendments.
Couple that with the fact that GOP budget discipline is all but nonexistent and you have a 'perfect storm' that converted this former GOP stalwart into a cash donating Obama supporter.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Great news, I bet the conservatards are fuming though

In futile fashion. NY IIRC recognizes out of state gay marriages now, and I imagine other stages will soon as well. Additionally, this gives us further avenue to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act.

IANAL. but the 'full faith and credit' clause in the constitution lets Congress determine 'the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another'.

IOW, unless SCOTUS overrules it Congress was entirely within its rights to pass DOMA.

As far as I read the law, it is not. As it only has authority to determine the manner in which such things are done, it does not have the right to over-ride the first part of the clause. Plus there is the equal protection case to be made

[starslayer]

As far as I read the law, it is not. As it only has authority to determine the manner in which such things are done, it does not have the right to over-ride the first part of the clause. Plus there is the equal protection case to be made.

I think Glocksman's talking about the second part of the sentence: "and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another". That would seem to give Congress the power to pass the DOMA, if you consider marriage to fall under "judgments". However, you are correct in that it fails on 14th Amendment grounds.

[Kanastrous]

Throw enough cash into the pot, and virtually anything becomes moral, for those people.

It's not like the Republican party is one monolithic block of fundamentalist, baptist, nationalist, businessman warhawks.

It's just that those blocks, largely separate groups of people, are all targeted by the Republican party.

If your party is composed of various stripes of assholes, then you have what can safely be treated as the party-of-choice, for assholes.

There's your 'monolithic bloc.'

[Alyrium Denryle]

As far as I read the law, it is not. As it only has authority to determine the manner in which such things are done, it does not have the right to over-ride the first part of the clause. Plus there is the equal protection case to be made.

I think Glocksman's talking about the second part of the sentence: "and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another". That would seem to give Congress the power to pass the DOMA, if you consider marriage to fall under "judgments". However, you are correct in that it fails on 14th Amendment grounds.

No... Judgements are things like lawsuits or criminal proceedings... unless you stretch the word judgments beyond the point where it has meaning

[starslayer]

Actually, I just found out that Glocksman misquoted. The current clause reads: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

Like Glocksman, IANAL, but it seems Congress can say what effect "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" have across state lines. In other words, Congress is perfectly within its rights to pass DOMA according to the second part of the clause, since it is merely regulating what effect such proceedings have in other states.

The second bit of DOMA just defines what a marriage is to the state. I can't see a constitutional out here for opponents of DOMA, but I haven't fully read the Constitution in a while. Keep in mind here that I find DOMA disgusting, but if there isn't a constitutional reason why it should be repealed, a court can't get rid of it.