Massachusetts 1913 statute revives bias
The 1913 Massachusetts law has recently been the focus of much scrutiny. They law states that Massachusetts cannot issue marriage licenses to couples if it is illegal for that couple to marry where they reside. In other words, if you are a gay couple visiting Massachusetts, and happen to live in Ohio, Massachusetts would not be able to issue a marriage license to you, because Ohio has in place a Defense of Marriage Act, making gay marriage illegal.
The law was created to block interracial marriages that, at the time, were illegal in many states. When the US Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that banning such marriages is unconstitutional, the law was meaningless.... until now.
Now, the Governor of Massachusetts and people like him, would like the law to live again to stop gay marriages. Deja vu? This seems to be a law of convenience to be used to stop any marriage that you don't approve of.
This is a law that probably would have been wiped away a long time ago had anyone had any inkling that it might someday enjoy a second life. After all, interracial marriage hasn't been a burning issue in Massachusetts in a long, long time. It's hypocritical to invoke it now, out of sheer convenience, in the service of a completely different cause. (source)
The controversy here is that Provincetown clerks (and now Worcester) have stated that they will ignore the law. Of course, since we seem as a society to never learn from history, this issue will only be resolved when the US Supreme Court makes a similar ruling in the future that preventing gay couples from entering into civil marriage violates the concept of equal protection and opportunities.
David J. Rushford is probably on the right side of history, if not on the right side of Massachusetts law. Rushford is the city clerk of Worcester. He says he has no plans to ask whether gay couples seeking marriage licenses plan to become Massachusetts residents, a question he says is not asked of straight couples seeking to tie the knot. Rushford says clerks should not be asked to function as "the marriage police."
At issue is an odious law dating to 1913 that states couples whose marriages would be invalid in their home states are not eligible to receive marriage licenses in Massachusetts.
After decades of irrelevance, the law has resurfaced as gay couples from other states ponder whether to come to Massachusetts to marry.
4 Comments
Leave a comment
Worcester, MA congressman Spillaine will introduce a bill to the state legislature today to repeal the 1913 law. His argument will be that as this law was indended to prevent miscegenation, it is shameful to have it on the books now. Romney, of course, wants to use it for other purposes, equally discriminatory and shameful.
I suspect Spillaine's bill will pass. I think the legislature has its eye on same sex marriage per se, not whether people come in from out of state or not. The fact that the 1913 law is now so linked to racial prejudice in the public's mind should goad the senators and congresspeople to want to get rid of it. If Romeny vetos Spillaine's bill, I think the legislature would over-ride.
Sorry Tiffany, there is no empirical data to answer your question. Except for the three thousand same-sex marriages that were just deemed legal the other day no other same-sex marriages have yet been performed that are recognized by a state. Until such marriages are recognized then none can be dissolved by divorce decree.
im for gay marriage but im not gay. im currently still in high school and my english class is debating gay marriage. my pro-gay marriage team is looking for divorce rates of currently allowed gay marriages (i know there prolly arent many so far) and a list of the states currently allowing gay marriages. if you have anything that might help, we would greatly appreciate it.
Let's call DOMA what it really is: DOGMA =
Disapproval of Gay Marriage Act.
This odious little law should have been struck from the books in 1967 when the Supreme Court of the United States struck down laws against inter-racial marriages.