Law curbing out-of-state couples faces a challengePage 2 of 2 -- Conference documents explaining the law's intent state: "As to marriages against the public policy of any state, e.g. marriages with [criminal intent], or with a minor without parental consent, . . . or between a white and a colored person . . . this act, being general in its terms, will apply to all of these states and give full effect to the prohibitory laws of each state by making void all marriages contracted in violation of such prohibitions."
Bonauto said she read the law as being "intended to cater to the lowest common denominator of discrimination in each state." "This law was given birth for discriminatory purposes and is being revived for discriminatory purposes," she said. Shawn Feddeman, a spokeswoman for Romney, said the governor's legal staff is still attempting to understand how to implement the SJC's marriage ruling and is sifting through several state statutes in preparation for May 17. "We're currently reviewing all relevant [Massachusetts] laws, including that one, with regard to the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and we anticipate providing instructions to city and town clerks at the scheduled information sessions," Feddeman said. Ronald A. Crews -- a former Georgia lawmaker and now president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which opposes gay marriage -- said that he had been unaware of the law's racial origins, but that such history does not dissuade him from opposing Spellane's bill to repeal it. "Those laws dealing with race are absolutely horrible laws, and I am glad they are no longer with us," Crews said. "And I speak as one who grew up in the South and remembers water fountains that said whites only. That's a horrible image from my childhood."But I still think that states should have the prerogative to protect marriage within the boundaries of their state," he said. In a footnote in one of the opinions written by the four SJC justices who formed the majority in the gay marriage ruling, Justice John M. Greaney suggested that out-of-staters will not be able to get married in Massachusetts. "The argument, made by some in the case, that legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts will be used by persons in other states as a tool to obtain recognition of a marriage in their state that is otherwise unlawful is precluded," the footnote said. Earlier this year, Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly said he, too, read the 1913 law as precluding same-sex couples from marrying in the Commonwealth if they reside in one of the 38 states that has passed a ban on gay marriage. It remains unclear what chances Spellane's bill has of passage, especially since the Legislature is about to take on the task of passing a budget during a fiscal crisis. Spellane -- a Democrat who is sponsoring the bill with Representatives Thomas M. Stanley of Waltham and Frank Smizik of Brookline, who are also Democrats -- said he has not run the bill by House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, who controls the fate of most legislation in the chamber. A spokesman for Finneran yesterday declined comment. Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, cheered Spellane and his colleagues, calling the 1913 law "nonsensical and inappropriate." "Our first interest is getting residents of Massachusetts married," Isaacson said. "We'll worry about out-of-state residents afterward. "But it's an obvious and egregious problem that has to be dealt with sooner or later, and we're glad legislators are being proactive about it," she said.
Material from the State House News Service was used in this report. © Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
|
