Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Out-Of-State Gay Couples Now Can Wed In Mass.
07.31.2008 1:00pm EDT
(Boston, Mass.) Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signed legislation Thursday allowing out-of-state same-sex couples to marry in the Bay State.
Patrick signed the legislation at a noon ceremony at the State House.
The old law was originally passed when interracial marriage was legal in Massachusetts, but not in most other parts of the country.
When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned state bans on interracial marriage, the Massachusetts law fell into disuse.
However, when the Massachusetts high court struck down the state ban on same-sex marriage in 2003, then-Gov. Mitt Romney (R) dusted off the old law, threatening to charge local clerks if they issued marriage licenses to out-of-state same-sex couples.
In a 2006 challenge to the out-of-state ban, the Supreme Judicial Court upheld the law, but noted that since Rhode Island did not have a specific law defining “couple” in its marriage law, gays and lesbians from that state could marry in Massachusetts. Rhode Island is believed to be the only state without a definition of what constitutes a couple.
The court also said that the Massachusetts legislature could repeal the 1913 law. For the past two years, LGBT rights groups and gay-friendly lawmakers worked to gather support for repeal.
Laws usually go into effect 90 days after they are signed, but the repeal bill contained a clause stating that it would go into effect as soon as the governor put his pen to it.
California, the only other state to allow same-sex marriage, has no out-of-state limitation, so gay and lesbian couples from across the country have been going there to wed.
With same-sex marriage opening up in Massachusetts it is expected a large number of couples from Eastern states will opt for Massachusetts.
An analysis by the state Office of Housing and Economic Development found repealing the law would draw thousands of couples to Massachusetts, boosting the economy by $111 million, creating 330 jobs and generating $5 million in taxes and fees over three years.
The study assumes New York would provide the largest number of gay couples – more than 21,000 couples – with New Hampshire, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine bringing the total to more than 30,000 in the first three years after the ban was lifted.
Repeal of the 1913 statute is another domino falling towards equality for same-sex couples. Connecticut, New Jersey and Vermont could be the next states to provide marriage equality to same-sex couples in 2009 after the Presidential election this November.
Does the legislation in Massachusetts and California regarding recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages include foreign legal same-sex marriages? I am a Canadian legally married to my partner.
California Guy…..don’t forget IOWA – there is already a case before the Iowa Supreme Court challenging the law there….and there is one legally married same sex couple in Iowa because when the judge originally overturned the ban, they beat the clock and were officially married before the ruling was stayed. Iowa could be next…..
I think our wonderful State of Vermont will be the next state to recognize Marriage. We have Civil Unions but we want full equal rights and we can only have it in marriage!
Good question Frank. I think you should write to EQUITY or the HRC and talk to Joe. It’s a try.
Another law permitting discrimination against gay people bites the dust. Another plank in constructing full EQUALITY for all citizens of these United States has been laid. Slowly, slowly, catchee monkey.
To Frank Kajfes, yes, any valid marriage performed in another country is legal anywhere in the US, per se. However, naturally, even though the US Constitution trumps any US State law, and since the US Constitution does not ban gay marriage, yet requires US States to give full faith and credit to one another for their public acts (I.e. “recognition of marriages”), the individual States have used their own various laws, even their own State Constitutions, to prevent gay marriage recognitions. Furthermore, there is a Federal Law, DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), that further attempts to give the States the ability to ban such recognitions, but ultimately it is actually and factually unconstitutional, just like it is of those individual States who have passed laws to ban such recognitions before or in addition to DOMA. This will ultimately be decided Federally or through the US Supreme Court, or both, just how it was within your country. Now, with all that being said, your marriage is respected and valid in California, Mass., Rhode Island, and NY, without question nor incident, due to these US States recognition of legal marriages performed elsewhere, including gay marriage. I hope this helps!
Pleeaase let’s read from the Holy Bible Romans chapter 1 from verse 19 to the end. gay is not God’s design for man(male or female). Doom awaits those who do such! but for those who’d repent,abundance of mercy.THANKS
In response to Paul Kay’s comment concerning Romans 1:19-32, the two verses that specifically would seem to support his argument are 26 and 27. These refer to unnatural sexual acts by heterosexuals between same sexes. The verses prior to verses 26 and 27 suggest Paul was referring to those who were employing what was for them would be unnatural acts. Marriage isn’t even mentioned. The falacy of using this passage as an argument against homosexual acts is that for GLBT people, same ses sex is natural. I also occurs in the animal world which further supports this argument.
Using the Bible as we now have it to support certain arguments is a dangerous thing. How do we know what writings are inspired by God? Protestants, Catholics, Jews, etc. can’t even agree what books are to be included in the Bible. We do not have any extant writings from the Apostles. Many changes, deliberate and accidental, have been made. Translations are often subject to the personal opinions of the translators (or of whom they are employed by). I personally believe in the Bible, God and Jesus but also realize one has to consider the context of the scriptures and look for the original intent of the writers.
Paul Kay: thank you for your suggestion. If only Biblical hermeneutics were this easy! It would be nice if the Bible simply were a handbook for modern life, easily indexed for instant reference to a preformulated, Manichean moral view on any and all pressing issues of today. But it’s not like that at all. It is Scripture, and reading Scripture well is never easy.
I think Paul is referring specifically to cultic prostitution in these verses, but his rhetoric harks back to Hebraic proscriptions about alternative sexualities. Like the ancient Hebrews, Paul associates homosexuality with paganism. And this is the whole point: what Paul is condemning here is not homosexuality per se, but rather the pagan idolatry that he believes is the root of illicit sexuality. The reference to sexuality is purely illustrative of the evils of idol-worship, and while it indicates Paul’s own attitudes, it cannot in fairness be regarded as a definitive statement of teh Christian position on homosexuality.
thanks for your responses Jeannie & rjb,but then i know that when God created man, He created them as male and female i. e Adam AND Eve and not ‘Adam and Steve’ for the purpose of coming together as man and wife to reproduce children after their own kind(according to God’s blessing on them ‘be fruitful and multiply’). You just imagine if either of your parents were homosexual, would you have existed today? not to talk of being in a position to compose a text as you’ve just done. please think deeply about this. THANKS
asically there are two things with Adam and Steve – First of all, linguists tell us that Adam and Eve are not proper names like we think of them, but rather A-dam (pronounced Ah-Dohm) which means the creature and eve which means the other. So God said, let’s create a creature and the other. Therefore they didn’t have a specific sexuality to them, but we think they do because we think of reproduction and therefore if we came from some ancestors one had to be a male and one female – so we leap to AHA! It was Adam and Eve, like John and Mary, proper names. Not necessarily so say the linguists.
Second, if it is implied that the only way we are fruitful and able to be co-creative with God is through having children, then what does that say to those who marry but never have children. That they married for an immoral reason, because they were in love or lust rather than wanting to procreate. Even the scripture says “it is not good for Man to be alone, let us make for him a helper.” Again, no gender is implied by the scripture but we leap to assumptions because of what is familiar to us, so it must be one of the opposite gender, right? We don’t know that. Plus this shows that Eve wasn’t made just to give the man some babies, but for companionship. Isn’t that what everyone who falls in love hopes for? Can’t that also be true of those who are gay and lesbian?
The post I just sent is a quote from my pastor when I asked how to respond to the “Adam and Eve – not Adam and Steve” argument.
If marriage is only for procreation, I guess that I couldn’t get married even if I wanted to. Even though I’m straight, I’m 65, and have had a hysterectomy.
Nice! I am so happy about this! Finally, I can get married in the home of Unitarian Universalism!