Front page, below the fold:
A 1913 Law Dies to Better Serve Gay Marriages
By PAM BELLUCK and KATIE ZEZIMA
…
On Tuesday, the State Senate voted to repeal a 1913 law that prevents Massachusetts from marrying out-of-state couples if their marriages would not be legal in their home states. The repeal, which passed with no objections on a voice vote, is expected to pass the House later this week. Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat and a supporter of same-sex marriage whose 18-year-old daughter recently disclosed publicly that she is a lesbian, has said he will sign the repeal.
There’s nothing new in the article for those who have been following this issue. The story, I think, is simply that the Senate’s action made the NYT’s front page.
Please share widely!
but quantity too. I use google news as a barometer of how popular a story is and the repeal of the 1913 law made 879 news articles (and counting). I was quite shocked with that number, not that I’m complaining since I think awareness is a good thing, but because it was only the senate that repealed it.
Since the gov of NY recently issued an executive order saying that marriages in other states are recognized in NY, does that mean that NY residents have already been able to get married in MA, or have they still been running afoul of the 1913 law?
<
p>And if they’ve been blocked by the law, will there be a flood of marriages from NY (along with their accompanying revenues for MA marriage-related businesses)?
Voters had no say in the matter in NY either.
we don’t have dictatorships or despots. Voters voted for their state senator, their state rep, and their governor in Massachusetts.
<
p>In New York, voters voted for their lieutenant governor, fully understanding that he was next in line for the governor’s mansion should the governor they were choosing leave office.
<
p>No say? Nonsense.
I didn’t say flood of money – I was just wondering whether people thought there would be a flood of same-sex couples coming to MA to wed, and I assumed that revenues would accompany them. See this article for examples of increased revenues from same-sex marriages.
<
p>As for whether the voters in NY had a say in the matter, I can honestly say I don’t give a damn. In Massachusetts, either. Equal rights in marriage, as with equal rights among people of all races, is not subject to the vote.
<
p>However, if you insist on a vote, we had one when each state set up its constitutions that say “all are equal under the law.” The courts are fully justified to say “Well, if all are equal, and you’re consenting adults, then whites can marry blacks, men can marry men, and women can marry women.” No additional vote is needed to enforce what our own voter-approved constitutions already say.
<
p>So my questions still stand, for those who have some information or a reasoned opinion: Will the repeal of the 1913 law allow NYers to come to MA to wed, and take those legal marriages home with them? And, if so, has anyone seen any research on how many NYers will do so?
You said…
<
p>
<
p>My mistake.
<
p>As for the voters say… This is a totally subjective matter since when pols vote on anything controversial or against the people’s wishes. If they vote with the people they say they follow what the people want, but when they vote against the people they are doing “the right thing”. I don’t know the answer but you obviously are very biased in one direction and feel the people’s view/opinions don’t matter.
<
p>I guess if it were this simple, we wouldn’t even need politicians, just check the law book and be done. But it isn’t that simple. Does the Constitution you mentioned talk about Affirmative Action or does that sound “unconstitutional”? Does it mention anything about Illegal immigrants… no vote needed here for this “voter-approved Constitution”. What does the Constitution say about Hate crimes or Hate speech… nothing. But we have Affirmative Actions, we have illegal immigrants and people are in prison for hate crimes so there are plenty of issues which the courts throw back at the people and the people push the politicians to write a law.
<
p>But, as I started this comment, this is all very subjective.
Everyone is assuming that there will. That’s in the NYT article, and also apparently in the recent “$100 million” study.
It’s national news. We need a big splash, and probably a “marry in Massachusetts” type advertising campaign too, to compete with California. We’re talkin hundreds of millions of dollars, supposedly.
<
p>Story about how South Carolina reacted to this here.
The problem with South Carolina’s ad campaign wasn’t that they were advertising to attract gay tourism. The problem was that they did it with a stupid slogan that was guaranteed to sit badly with the gay and straight public alike.
<
p>Just because South Carolina hired an ad agency that can’t come up with an effective ad, and had a tourism dept. too thick to see it, doesn’t mean Mass. shouldn’t capitalize on its unique position in the northeast and draw in tourism and marriage revenues.
The SC Govenor is appalled that this ad went out and wants an investigation. SC has said they will not pay for this ad campaign. SC is actually a pretty pathetic state for civil rights. The thought of GLBT people landing there with all those bigots is scarey. I know because I’ve been there and I have to go next week to visit family.