Laura Kiritsy of Bay Windows reports that the MA legislature “will likely take up a bill to repeal the 1913 law that prevents non-resident same-sex couples from marrying before the close of the legislative session at the end of this month.”
Please share widely!
i hope they are actually successful with the repeal. with california being open to all who would marry, massachusetts has lost whatever shred of “reasoning” may have been behind retention of the putrid 1913 laws.
<
p>and as i’ve said so many times, it is financially stupid of the commonwealth to keep out couples from other states who want to come to marry. they will inevitably spend money and boost the economy while doing so. not to mention, isn’t it nice to be a magnet for people demonstrating love and commitment? why hide that light under the bushel? it should be one of the tourism bureau’s focal points. virginia may be for lovers*, but massachusetts is the love & commitment state.
<
p>*heteros only – homos need not apply.
<
p>p.s. i can see why mary bonato and others are still supporting diane wilkerson. she is apparently still a willing and effective civil rights fighter. not that sonya wouldn’t be, but diane is, after all, in place and able to act right now.
My own view is that Legislature didn’t want Mass to be the first state “opening the flood gates” so to speak to Americans nationwide because of the possibility of making it an election issue. I expected them to pull a “New Jersey” and repeal the 1913 as soon as the election was over with (I reference New Jersey because their politicians have asked/told the gay community to wait to upgrade to marriage from civil unions in 2009, after the general election).
<
p>Since California now allows gay marriage and has no residential requirement (and the fact that it hasn’t become an election issue), it’s no big deal for Mass to follow suit. My own $0.02 anyways.
<
p>Thanks for posting this. I’ll definitely call my reps.
<
p>-Paul
I think we would have killed 1913 one way or the other, but this probably sped it up by at least a year. Can’t be losing tourist dollars to California!
My response to this post was to e-mail my rep. How about you?
I would be shocked if our rep, or the other two reps for Arlington, do the wrong thing.
<
p>As my opposite-sex marriage would have been compromised by the bigotry of the 1913 law, I view this language to be an insult to the values we now hold 95 years later. Get it off the books.
even if you’re sure where they stand. they need to know their votes are supported, even when expected.
I’d be shocked if my representative does the right thing.
otherwise, you leave the decision entirely up to them and perhaps the people who call in opposition to the repeal. hold them accountable!
<
p>i don’t know what gets your rep’s engines burning, but even if they might be opposed to marriage equality, they should still be able to see the financial benefits to the state by the repeal. marriage equality is a done deal in massachusetts, so they might as well get on board with the fiscal silver lining being presented to them.
He’s not going to do anything that would allow the expansion of equal marriage.
Let him hear from folks. It might take a lot of effort over a lot of issues, but you just might wear him down… or wear him out.
you can make him face it as an economic decision. does he want to help the economy of his district, or doesn’t he? the choice is his, and his constituents should let them know that they’re watching. isn’t the gop supposed to be the party of business?
You might not change his mind, but he might suddenly find he has a pressing engagement that would make him miss the vote. You know what I mean — he’d love to vote against it, but he really has to wash his cat that day.
Just got an email from Mass Family [sic] Institute. They’re always good about keeping up with the content of Bay Windows, are linking to the story above, and priming their people to be ready for action instructions tomorrow on how to tell their legislators to keep the door barred to love and happiness. Please don’t let your rep hear from just them.
Get a JP—marriage ceremonies too political. Marriage is BS anyway. Just a societal excuse to screw whoever makes the most money after the sham unfolds.
<
p>http://www.bostonherald.com/en…
you should read the articles you post, lol!
the two-step process proposed by the bishop is a far cry from “don’t bother us”. what it is is a recognition that civil marriage is distinct from a the religious blessing on a marriage.
<
p>it may surprise some, but separation of church and state is vitally important to as many clergy as it is to atheists like me. it protects us all.
The need for marriage equality derives from the civil privileges given to people who are married, and not from the religious status. Religions have the right to recognize who is married in their eyes, and should be free to do so as long as there are no civil handicaps that derive from the religious practice.
that’s how the colonialists who first came to America viewed things, too. Marriage to them was a civil matter, or common law anyway. Per Mike, of course.
Must be a tough election in the 2nd Suffolk. Nothing like putting your stamp on someone else’s bill to gloss over “alleged” commingling of campaign funds and failure to pay income taxes.
<
p>Nonetheless, a worthy piece of legislation.
was implemented to prevent the spread of biracial marriages, and it continues to be used for bigotry. It was bad then, bad now, and well past time to repeal.
I just got the email from MFI asking anti-love activists to contact their legislators and tell them to oppose repealing the 1913 laws. So, if you haven’t already, now’s the time to tell your legislators to vote for love and commitment (not to mention an expanded Bay State economy!) and repeal this mean-spirited legacy of the segregation era.
<
p>The vote is expected early next week.
Chapter 272: Section 36. Blasphemy
<
p>Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.
I’ve just always found it amusing that certain laws clearly outlast their usefulness, but have a certain element of historical tradition to them. Of course, enforcing it would never survive a First Amendment challenge anyway.
from the law books doesn’t remove it from the history books.
<
p>Personally, I’m a big fan of keeping laws fresh and updated to reflect today’s society. That’s the spirit of a Democracy: we shouldn’t be afraid to change things, because ultimately that means people from hundreds of years ago are making the decisions for us today. Our founding fathers were intelligent, but in reality no more or less worthy than we are today. By deifying them and being wary to change anything they created, we’ve essentially decided maybe they were smarter than us after all. I don’t think that’s a good thing at all – I’d hate to see an America who thought our best days and people are behind us.
<
p>So let’s clear the books of all the old, unnecessary, useless and unused laws. Let’s not be afraid to change the constitution to add in new rights, or clarify the rights that exist today. We won’t lose the value in the old text and language – it’ll still be there, in the annals of history, to use and learn from.
<
p>This isn’t destroying history, it’s maintaining and preserving in ways that will ultimately prevent it from complete decay. This isn’t tearing down the 200 year old church, it’s replacing the broken bricks and giving it a new paint job. It’s adding seats to the Green Monster for all to enjoy a new experience that’s in the spirit of Fenway. This is taking history, learning from it, and making the present better for it.
not to mention that moribund laws like the 1913 laws can come back to bite in ways never imagined by their original authors. i keep waiting for lingering adultery laws to be enforced again. you know some texas governor or some such is going to make the play for the so. baptist vote that way one of these days.
because it is actually proving harmful. As for adultery I suspect in light of Lawrence v. Texas it wouldn’t stand up in court to enforce against it.
before a new use was found for it. that is my point – you never know how something noxious in the law can be recycled. i wonder if you would have been for its repeal then, before its new use had been dreamed up.
<
p>i don’t know if the adultery laws would stand, but perhaps they would. after all, married couples made a contract, and they break it with adultery. but actually i don’t care whether it would hold up under judicial scrutiny. i’d just have tremendous pleasure watching as the question moved through the courts (both of justice and public opinion).
Did you notice the smiley emoticon in my title? Massachusetts has a proud heritage of beginning as a “city on a hill” which believeit or not did lay the foundation of the progressive politics we are known for. Sure history won’t be forgotten, but to this history buff there’s more of a connection if its actually there. Keep in mind I watch state openings of Parliament precisely to witness to ancient yet unnecessary ceremonies. This law is ultimately harmless. I’d call for repeal in a heartbeat if I thought it were actually hurting anyone.
I kind of new I was being a little speechy when I wrote it – even debating on whether or not I should put a line in there to that effect. I get that you were being lighthearted, I just fundamentally disagree with you.
<
p>If you think Democracy is a living, breathing thing, it’s important to actually be living and breathing. Consider removing these old laws akin to a yearly checkup, or removing that pesky mole that’s probably harmless, but may become something else years from now. And like so often happens in medicine, we can keep the old as suevineers as soon as its taken off our body – the metal screws removed from your broken leg, the old cast with everyone’s signatures, the crutches you used every day for weeks but no longer need.
<
p>In so many of history and law books I’ve read, where the constitution is written in the text, it includes the whole document from when it was first written till now. The bits and pieces that have been taken out are just struck through. Our laws are always with us, even when we change them. The fact that we do change them actually can actually ad value to the laws that no longer exist, showing just how Democracy is living, breathing and always changing.
<
p>And, as Laurel already said, you never know how some of those old laws can come back to haunt us. If we just ignore all the old laws, we’re bound to miss some of the ones that could be harmful – like 1913. Better to get out ahead. Consider it a good opportunity to actually have a public discussion about all those old laws, and how that would be an excellent opportunity for people to learn and take ownership of this experiment called democracy and appreciate how we’ve changed as a society. Surely that would be more valuable than having a few book worms get to see these ancient laws exist as actual laws in text (no offense).
what other ugly laws should we put back that have been repealed, just for the sake of historical glory? laws giving men ownership of their wives? slavery and Jim Crow laws, surely. and how about that one preventing indians from entering boston? that was nice to keep around, just to maintain a friendly air. yes, we need to send a message to all and sundry that, like those flying the confederate flag over the south carolina state capitol, we’re all just history buffs, setting the right tone and freedom and justice for all be damned.
Your examples seem more harmful. Otherwise I’ll also call on you to lighten up a bit and refer to my reply to Ryan above.
when you tell people like me or Laurel to “lighten up,” you forget the fact that we’re actually tremendously impacted by one of these old laws. When you have a personal stake in something, it’s significantly more difficult to lighten up. Normal people aren’t ever very likely to be effected by these old, pesky laws – but minorities are, whether it’s 1913, or the old sodomy laws which were (thankfully) tossed out by the US Supreme Court.
<
p>However, it’s still important to manually take those laws out of the book because – who knows – some day that sodomy decision could be reversed and suddenly we’d have annoying politicians trying to arrest gay people for being gay.
<
p>So I understand why you think people should lighten up on something that seems so trivial, but try to view things from the other side of the coin and see how it may be impossible for people to lighten up about it, especially minorities who have been suppressed time and time again by all those ancient, often-thought harmless laws.
…, apparently there is a law in WI such that if one were to get married out of state and then return with a marriage that WI wouldn’t recognize, you could be guilty of fraud, complete with jail time.
<
p>From Salon:
<
p>