Reilly to continue to defend 1913 law limiting gay marriage
GOP questions AG's commitment
Despite his recent statements in support of same-sex marriage, Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly's office said yesterday that he intends to continue defending a 1913 state law barring out-of-state gay couples from marrying in Massachusetts.
One of Reilly's top lawyers reiterated his position yesterday after the state Republican Party questioned the attorney general's commitment to the 1913 law in an ongoing legal challenge brought by same-sex marriage supporters. Reilly's decision to continue defending the law immediately drew harsh criticism from backers of same-sex marriage but praise from the state GOP.
Reilly, who is vying for the Democratic Party's nomination for governor next year, once opposed same-sex marriage and the November 2003 Supreme Judicial Court ruling that legalized such marriages. More recently, he has said he supports same-sex marriage, saying, ''It's time to move on." As attorney general, though, he will be called upon to defend the 1913 law banning marriages in Massachusetts of couples who are not allowed to marry under the laws of their home states.
Supporters of same-sex marriage are attempting to overturn the 1913 law. They say it is a long-ignored statute with roots in turn-of-the-century efforts to stop the spread of mixed-race marriages.
Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, lashed out at Reilly for defending ''the discriminatory law and its discriminatory application to gay people."
She also said that Reilly is trying to play both sides of the issue as he ramps up his gubernatorial campaign by saying he supports gay marriage while defending the 1913 law.
''I think it is deplorable that the highest-ranking elected official of the Democratic Party in this state would act that way," Isaacson said. ''Tom Reilly has to decide what he really thinks and feels about this issue. Defending an obviously antigay application of this law is reprehensible."
Tim O'Brien, executive director of the state Republican Party, commended Reilly yesterday for continuing to back the 1913 law. O'Brien had raised questions about Reilly's position on same-sex marriage earlier in the day.
''We're pleased that Tom Reilly is standing with Mitt Romney to ensure that one judge in Massachusetts is not redefining marriage for the other 49 states," O'Brien said.
Earlier in the day, O'Brien had written a letter to Reilly asking whether he was still committed to defending the 1913 law, which has effectively limited the spread of same-sex marriage beyond the Bay State's borders.
''If you have now changed your position and believe the state law on this point is unconstitutional, I urge you to make this reversal public," O'Brien wrote. ''If you do not intend to defend the laws of the state, you have an obligation to appoint someone in your place who can make those arguments in your place."
Stephanie Lovell, Reilly's first assistant, promptly sent an e-mail saying that the attorney general has no intention of backing off the case.
''It is our job to defend the laws of the Commonwealth," Lovell said. ''That is what we have done from the beginning of this case, and it is what we will continue to do."
Soon after same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts last year, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the legal advocacy group that successfully argued for same-sex marriage before the SJC, filed a suit on behalf of eight out-of-state couples denied marriage licenses under the 1913 law. The couples are from Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.
In a brief filed in March, GLAD argued that Governor Mitt Romney revived the 1913 law because of his opposition to the marriages of same-sex couples, knowing that it would prevent them from marrying in the state.
A Superior Court judge rejected that argument, but the SJC agreed to hear an appeal of that ruling in February. The state has a June 24 deadline to file a brief in the case.
In a brief filed at Superior Court last year, Reilly rejected the argument that the law is discriminatory, because he said it applies to same-sex and heterosexual couples alike.
But he also argued that the statute would help blunt support for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage because it would severely hamper the spread of such marriages across the nation.
In a statement released yesterday, Deval Patrick, a Democratic candidate for governor who supports same-sex marriage, said politicians should be focusing on other issues, such as education and healthcare.
''It's a shame that we are spending any more time on the subject of gay marriage," said a statement Patrick issued. ''This is old politics all over again. The court got it right. Let's move on." 