A curb on gay marriage will fall
Repeal of 1913 law goes next to Patrick; Nonresidents to get right to wed in Mass.
In a major victory for advocates of same-sex marriage rights, the House voted by a wide margin yesterday to repeal a 95-year-old law that prevents gay and lesbian couples from most other states from marrying here, setting the stage for Massachusetts to join just one other state, California, in allowing same-sex couples to marry regardless of residence.
The repeal passed swiftly in the Senate earlier this month on a unanimous voice vote, but some wondered if the issue would stall in the larger House, where a handful of lawmakers wanted to avoid voting on a gay marriage question just before the election season.
But Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, who joined the governor and Senate president in supporting the repeal, wanted to bring it to the floor, with the end of the session looming.
That set up a 45-minute floor debate yesterday in which supporters called the 1913 law a dusty 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.
On a roll call, the House voted 118 to 35 to pass the repeal bill. The legislation will probably be sent to Governor Deval Patrick this week. The repeal will take effect 90 days after Patrick signs the measure.
"I'm glad that we finally did it," Representative Byron Rushing, a Boston Democrat and one of the bill's sponsors, said after the vote. On the floor, Rushing had urged colleagues: "Let us be fair. Let us be equitable. Let us repeal the law."
The repeal was among many measures considered yesterday by lawmakers, who must wrap up their work for 2008 by midnight tomorrow. Among the decisions, the Senate passed a bill to allow registration on Election Day, while the House budget committee rejected Patrick's request for expanded powers to cut budget line items without legislative approval.
The 1913 law specifically bars out-of-state residents from marrying here if the marriage would be considered void in their home state. Its repeal opens the borders for potentially thousands of nonresident same-sex couples to marry in Massachusetts. A flood of couples is expected from New York, where Governor David Paterson has instructed state agencies to recognize and grant benefits to gay couples who marry elsewhere, even though New York does not authorize same-sex marriages.
Neither House nor Senate votes on the issue drew 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.
Unlike what happened in the earlier debate in the Senate, several representatives called yesterday for keeping the law on the books. Representative John A. Lepper warned that repealing the 1913 law would create chaos outside Massachusetts. He said other states will be forced to consider same-sex marriage or resolve disputes among couples who marry in Massachusetts but want benefits, or to divorce, back home.
"This [law] ensures that there will be a willing and approving state that will enforce all stipulations and benefits associated with marriage, which of course continues to be a legal bulwark of society," said Lepper, an Attleboro Republican.
Another opponent of repeal, Representative Mary S. Rogeness, a Longmeadow Republican, said that the Supreme Judicial Court in its 2003 ruling legalizing gay marriage said the 1913 law would keep couples from marrying in Massachusetts and challenging marriage laws elsewhere. She warned that repeal might invite young couples from states with stricter age laws to take advantage of the Massachusetts provision that allows minors to seek marriage through a court hearing, with parental approval.
"We in Massachusetts pride ourselves on being a very progressive state and hold in a certain amount of disrespect states that might have teenaged marriages," she said.
Those arguments failed to persuade most to keep the old law. Representative Jeffrey D. Perry, a Sandwich Republican who supported the proposed constitutional amendment last year, said he was not persuaded, because other states - 41 of which have passed laws or amendments prohibiting gay marriage - already must contend with Massachusetts marriage licenses if residents here move out of state. The same goes for marriages granted in California, where a recent court decision legalized same-sex marriage regardless of residency.
"Having rejected the states-rights argument and having a suspicion that the law was enacted in 1913 to racially discriminate against interracial couples, I thought the only responsible thing to do would be to repeal it and get it off our books," he said.
Same-sex marriage advocates in Massachusetts and beyond celebrated the vote.
"It's fantastic," said Marc Solomon, executive director of MassEquality, an advocacy and lobbying organization for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender rights. "We've really rid our state of the last vestige of legal discrimination against same-sex couples, and once again we lead the way in equality."
In New York, the repeal could prompt many of the state's roughly 49,000 same-sex couples, as estimated by the US Census Bureau, to visit Massachusetts.
"We're thrilled that Massachusetts has lifted its residency requirements," said Joe Tarver, spokesman for the Empire State Pride Agenda, an advocacy organization. "Now New Yorkers can drive across the border to a neighboring state and get a marriage license that will be recognized as legal and valid here at home."
DiMasi passed the speaker's gavel to representatives Paul J. Donato and Lida E. Harkins for most of the debate and did not speak on the issue. He voted for repeal and issued a statement afterward.
"The speaker is pleased that so many members, Democrats and Republicans, joined with him in supporting the repeal of such an outdated and unfair law," spokesman David Guarino wrote in e-mail. "This, like the protection of same-sex marriage before it, is a matter of basic civil rights and fairness and one the speaker felt was important to get done before formal sessions end."
Patrick has said he is eager to sign the bill. "The 1913 law is outdated and discriminatory; repealing it is the right thing to do," he said in a statement yesterday.
In Worcester, City Clerk David J. Rushford welcomed the vote as one of about a dozen city and town clerks who filed an unsuccessful legal challenge after Governor Mitt Romney invoked the little-known law to prevent Massachusetts from becoming what he called "the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage."
In other legislation addressed yesterday, lawmakers passed a bill that gives greater access to treatments for patients with substance abuse problems, autism, eating disorders, or post-traumatic stress disorder. Known as the "mental health parity bill," the measure, passed by the House and Senate, allows coverage for treatments of the four conditions, to go along with those that current law requires health insurers to provide full coverage for. The most common psychiatric conditions already covered are schizophrenia; schizoaffective disorder; major depression; bipolar disorder; paranoia and other psychotic disorders; obsessive-compulsive disorder; panic disorder; delirium and dementia; and affective disorders.
Other votes:
Kay Lazar of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Material from State House News Service and the Associated Press was also used. 