Governor signs law allowing out-of-state gays to wed

By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff

Surrounded by cheering, clapping gay-rights activists and legislators, Governor Deval Patrick today signed a bill repealing a 95-year-old statute that had prevented gay and lesbian couples from most other states from marrying in Massachusetts.

"It's a good day," said Patrick, declaring that the repeal will "confirm a simple truth: that is, in Massachusetts, equal means equal."

Massachusetts will "continue to lead the way as a national leader" and affirm "all people come before their government as equals," Patrick said in a bill-signing ceremony at the State House's Grand Staircase. Gay marriage "is still troubling for some of our citizens," he said, "but it is still the law."

Patrick, who turned 52 today, also called the bill "a great birthday present."

Marc Solomon, executive director of MassEquality, a gay-rights organization, said, "This is really a new day. We welcome everyone from New York to come here and get married. We think it's a shame people can't get married in their own states."

The repeal took effect immediately, making Massachusetts the second state after California to allow same-sex couples to marry, regardless of residence. It opened the borders for potentially thousands of nonresident same-sex couples. That includes an estimated 49,000 couples from New York, where Governor David Paterson has instructed state agencies to recognize and grant benefits to gay couples who marry elsewhere, even though the Empire State does not authorize same-sex marriages.

The law specifically barred out-of-state residents from marrying here if the marriage would be considered void in their home state. The origins of the law could be traced to the national backlash over the interracial marriage of heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson. At the time, 30 of 48 states banned interracial marriage, and many other states, including Massachusetts, enacted provisions that would keep interracial couples from crossing borders to marry in their jurisdiction.

The law remained on the books but fell into obscurity until gay marriage became legalized in Massachusetts, and Governor Mitt Romney cited the law as a means to prevent Massachusetts from becoming what he called "the Las Vegas of gay marriage."

Unlike past same-sex marriage debates, the repeal of the 1913 law did not draw protesters to the State House. Advocates cited the absence of demonstrations as a sign that same-sex marriage has become an accepted fact of life in Massachusetts, after lawmakers in a joint session last year rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to limit marriage to heterosexual couples.

The repeal passed swiftly in the Senate earlier this month on a unanimous voice vote. The House voted 118 to 35 to pass the repeal bill on Tuesday after a 45-minute floor debate.

Supporters called the 1913 law a vestige of racist opposition to interracial marriage, while opponents argued for keeping it in deference to the rights of other states to set marriage laws. Several representatives called for keeping the law on the books because they said it would create legal chaos for other states that would be forced to consider same-sex marriage or resolve disputes among couples who marry in Massachusetts but want benefits, or to divorce, back home.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_...o_sign_bil.html
Discuss.

I still think that they should name it something else. I know I know ... who cares what it's called. Well the religious right for one. I think to appease both sides, just call it a civil union, or make up some cool new word that will be the equivalent. That way the right wingers are happy because their "sacred" institution of marriage will only be between Men and Women. And all the gays (is that PC or should i say Homosexuals) can be happy because they will be treated with the same rights as other married folk.

Win / Win ? Discuss.

Absolutely.

In addition, we need to appease white supremacists, so I say we come up with a new name for black people. Instead of "people" or "humans", we should come up with some alternate word, because really, it'll mean the same thing.

I think it's great that the US is gradually moving towards greater equality for homosexuals. Usually the only reason people object to gay marriage is because they have a close-minded, traditionalist view of marriage as being between "a woman and a man", normally quoting some legal or religious document which says as much. It's clear that society has come a long way since that definition of marriage was established, and I am confident that most people see marriage more as an official/legal union rather than a religious ceremony.

There is no reason to exclude same-sex couples from legal unions unless you're homophobic or object based on religious teachings. Neither of these groups have the right to impose their views on society, which is obvious in the case of the former, but sadly many Christians in particular seem to think that politics should respect and reflect their religious values. In my opinion no governmental policy should be guided by religious beliefs, as it fundamentally contradicts the citizens' right to freedom of and from religion.

It seems pretty ridiculous to me, looking at the USA as an outsider, that many Americans decry the legalisation of gay marriage and call for political freedom & independence in the same breath. They want to have their cake and eat it.

Summary: I approve of Patrick's decision.

Even if they can't get a piece of paper that says they're married, most insurance companies are recognizing allowing spousal benefits for same sex couples.

I can verify this, at least for life insurance. "life partner" was seen quite often.

Not the same though, with life insurance, you just have to prove an insurable interest. If you lived in a home with your best friend and you could prove that loss of your income would dramatically affect that person, they could be the beneficiary.

not the same as what? I was just saying that they are recognized as having insurable interest.
you mean as in health insurance, like having a spouse on your work plan or something?

Yeah, sorry that was not very clear.

can we let them have 3/5ths of a marriage? that sounds fair.

I think it's great that the US is gradually moving towards greater equality for homosexuals. Usually the only reason people object to gay marriage is because they have a close-minded, traditionalist view of marriage as being between "a woman and a man", normally quoting some legal or religious document which says as much. It's clear that society has come a long way since that definition of marriage was established, and I am confident that most people see marriage more as an official/legal union rather than a religious ceremony.

There is no reason to exclude same-sex couples from legal unions unless you're homophobic or object based on religious teachings. Neither of these groups have the right to impose their views on society, which is obvious in the case of the former, but sadly many Christians in particular seem to think that politics should respect and reflect their religious values. In my opinion no governmental policy should be guided by religious beliefs, as it fundamentally contradicts the citizens' right to freedom of and from religion.

It seems pretty ridiculous to me, looking at the USA as an outsider, that many Americans decry the legalisation of gay marriage and call for political freedom & independence in the same breath. They want to have their cake and eat it.

Summary: I approve of Patrick's decision.

How long before someone decides that marriage should not be limited to two individuals? What happens when, in order to get health coverage for someone, they invite a third individual into their legal bond?

You seem to want to imply that this is some sort of American hypocricy. It is FAR from a world-wide standard. I believe that there are only 6 countries in the World that recognize Same Sex Marriage (including Norway which will begin to recognize 1/1/2009)

My point was exactly that - it is an AMERICAN hypocrisy. America is a unique political entity with a distinguishable set of values and beliefs: independence, grifting, liberty, federalism, anti-socialism, varying degrees of libertarianism, and so on. The archetypal American political viewpoint is that the government should exercise only as much control as is necessary to maintain safety, order and security for the country. According to that viewpoint intervention into the private lives of citizens, including relationships and therefore marriage is extraneous to the requirements of government and is therefore undesirable. However it does seem to be a particularly American hypocrisy that many citizens tote the former principles, yet oppose a rollout of gay rights simply because they are homophobic to some extent.

I hope you now understand that your little jibe of "BTW the UK is not included in that list. Cake anyone?" was completely irrelevant. My post was not an immature "my country is better than your country" boast. The UK does not have a tendency to resent government intervention. In fact, it is quite the contrary - we have a social-democratic system which encourages dependency on the state, entrusting it with substantial power.

I just don't understand why it needs to be that same word.

Make no mistake about this, the desire to be legally married in this debate has less to do with "love" than the legal benefits of being married.