Mass_SkinsFan Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Apparently the Legislature and Governor of the Communistwealth of Massachusetts believe that they know what's good for the residents of 48 other states more than the residents, legislators, and governors of those states..... http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/07/gov_to_sign_bil.html Governor signs law allowing out-of-state gays to wed July 31, 2008 01:10 PM 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. .....somehow I get the feeling the legislatures and governors of some other states are going to be working in the next couple of months to craft legislation ensuring that these people don't have a single leg to stand on WHEN they try to sue for spousal rights in their home state after being married in the Communistwealth. Discuss...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Complete BULL****!!! Unbelievable!!! I can't believe they did this **** it's going to effect everyo....... Wait . . . it doesn't effect me at all, who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Apparently the Legislature and Governor of the Communistwealth of Massachusetts believe that they know what's good for the residents of 48 other states more than the residents, legislators, and governors of those states..... I think it's more a case of "Hey! California's making Big Bucks off of drive-in weddings, and we're not getting any!" .....somehow I get the feeling the legislatures and governors of some other states are going to be working in the next couple of months to craft legislation ensuring that these people don't have a single leg to stand on WHEN they try to sue for spousal rights in their home state after being married in the Communistwealth.Discuss...... AFAIK, it's already been done in a great many states. (And by the Feds.) (Funny, but whether something is a State's Right seems to depend a lot on whether you agree with the state's law or not.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted July 31, 2008 Author Share Posted July 31, 2008 I think it's more a case of "Hey! California's making Big Bucks off of drive-in weddings, and we're not getting any!" That's probably part of it Larry. :laugh: AFAIK, it's already been done in a great many states. (And by the Feds.) Yes, many states have laws banning gay marriage in the state. However, they also have laws, and precedent for accepting marriages performed in other states. THAT'S where I think you'll see the challenges, depending on how the law is written in each state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Boston Glob? RUN!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 I suppose the Feds could rule under the interstate commerce law which they've opened the door already as being absolute rule over everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGreenistheBest Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Geez, next thing you know they'll be letting white people marry black people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted July 31, 2008 Author Share Posted July 31, 2008 Boston Glob? One of the politer ways that I refer to that publication, actually. I suppose the Feds could rule under the interstate commerce law which they've opened the door already as being absolute rule over everything. See that's one of the things that this is going to come down to. By striking down this previous law the Legislature and governor have opened up a huge potential can of worms related to interstate commerce and the idea of reciprocity of marriage licenses, driver's licenses, etc..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 and marijuana bub... ya don't enforce it in this instance and marijuana is suddenly gonna be legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Mass, (et al): AFAIK, a great many states have recently passed laws declaring that they will not recognize gay marriages performed in other states. I think the feds have passed a federal law declaring that cay marriages don't cross state lines. (No doubt such laws will be challenged. OTOH, given the swift and even way our federal judiciary works, it'll be a decade or two before the challenges work their way through the systems.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted July 31, 2008 Author Share Posted July 31, 2008 Mass, (et al): AFAIK, a great many states have recently passed laws declaring that they will not recognize gay marriages performed in other states. I think the feds have passed a federal law declaring that cay marriages don't cross state lines. (No doubt such laws will be challenged. OTOH, given the swift and even way our federal judiciary works, it'll be a decade or two before the challenges work their way through the systems.) I know that many have passed laws stating that they will not allow gay marriage in their states, but I'm not sure if there are provisions in those bills related to out-of-state gay marriages. Besides, I'm sure THAT would get challenged under the equal protection clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 well this looks like its gonna end up as a big mess. the supreme court never should screwed with that interstate commerce law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.