Skip Nav
Disney
Yes, You Can Be a Disney Princess — Here's How!
Wedding
You Won't Believe This Is a Backyard Wedding — but It Is!
ben higgins
I Stayed in The Bachelor Fantasy Suite, and This Is What Happened

Massachusetts Senate Expands Gay Marriage Rights To Out-Of-State Couples

Click to Read

Massachusetts Senate Expands Gay Marriage Rights to Out-of-State Couples: The Massachusetts Senate voted Tuesday to repeal a 1913 law used to bar out-of-state gay couples from marrying in the state, a law that critics say was originally aimed at interracial marriages. The law prohibits couples from obtaining marriage licenses if they can't legally wed in their home states. After Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay marriages in 2004, then-Gov. Mitt Romney ordered town clerks to enforce the then-little-known 1913 law and deny licenses to out-of-state couples.

0 Comments
Around The Web
Join The Conversation
True-Song True-Song 8 years
I "accept." Just kidding!
UnDave35 UnDave35 8 years
I apologize forany offense. It wasn't intended.
True-Song True-Song 8 years
"Couple" (in quotes) seems somehow really, really offensive. Like their feelings and their relationship are fake.
UnDave35 UnDave35 8 years
I used the quotes on purpose. I wasn't sure what word I should use to describe the two people, without showing that I condone the action, but without condeming. I'm not sure that makesany sense. This could all be just a stream of consciousness.... The lake looks really blue today. ;)
True-Song True-Song 8 years
"But I think it was Alabama who still had the law banning interracial marriage until around 2000, when it was finally repealed by voters." It was Alabama. And the vote to repeal only passed with about 60% of the vote if I recall correctly.
True-Song True-Song 8 years
"I am still sorting out how marriage became a government issue to begin with." Seriously. I'd be really curious to know the history of it. (I probably do know it since I read "Marriage: a History" but it was a long book, and I don't remember most of it.)
gitsie123 gitsie123 8 years
I love that undave put the word couple in quotes! Did you do that on purpose?
gitsie123 gitsie123 8 years
I always thought gay marriage was a civil right but I know many people who would vehenemently disagree with me. I do think if the government banned same sex couples from physically being together then that would be violating a human right. I do think that discrimination of any sort of is a violation of human rights so this is a toughie.
stephley stephley 8 years
Geez, forget human, civil or any other rights - it's about money:"The repeal of the out-of-state marriage ban would come more than four years after Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay men and lesbians to marry, and same-sex marriage advocates said the timing was carefully calculated to catch the prevailing political — and economic — winds.State officials said they expected a multimillion-dollar benefit in weddings and tourism, especially from people who live in New York. A just-released study commissioned by the State of Massachusetts concludes that in the next three years about 32,200 couples would travel here to get married, creating 330 permanent jobs and adding $111 million to the economy, not including spending by wedding guests and tourist activities the weddings might generate."
stephley stephley 8 years
Geez, forget human, civil or any other rights - it's about money: "The repeal of the out-of-state marriage ban would come more than four years after Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay men and lesbians to marry, and same-sex marriage advocates said the timing was carefully calculated to catch the prevailing political — and economic — winds. State officials said they expected a multimillion-dollar benefit in weddings and tourism, especially from people who live in New York. A just-released study commissioned by the State of Massachusetts concludes that in the next three years about 32,200 couples would travel here to get married, creating 330 permanent jobs and adding $111 million to the economy, not including spending by wedding guests and tourist activities the weddings might generate."
MartiniLush MartiniLush 8 years
Jillness, there was no federal law recognizing interracial marriage. What happened there was that the Supreme Court struck down a STATE law that prohibited it. (I think the state was Virginia, but I could be wrong). Other states then repealed their similar laws, rather than face challenges. But I think it was Alabama who still had the law banning interracial marriage until around 2000, when it was finally repealed by voters.
stephley stephley 8 years
Legally, it's the same crap we pull on each other all the time. You can have a right, and I can tie it up in knots.
lilkimbo lilkimbo 8 years
To me, you would need a constitutional amendment because, as of now, marriage is a right reserved for the states by the 10th Amendment.
UnDave35 UnDave35 8 years
I understand what they are trying to do. But how can they legally do that? Doesn't that usurp the power of the legal system in the state the "couple" has legal residence?I agree that we should decide this nationally. I don't see it being pretty, and I don't see it passing.
UnDave35 UnDave35 8 years
I understand what they are trying to do. But how can they legally do that? Doesn't that usurp the power of the legal system in the state the "couple" has legal residence? I agree that we should decide this nationally. I don't see it being pretty, and I don't see it passing.
stephley stephley 8 years
Dave, it is/was all about using different laws to void something you don't approve. Mitt didn't like that his state was allowing gay marriage, so as he governor he dredge up the old law to get in the way of the new. The only people who could take advantage of the new law were people whose home states did not bar gay marriage. Now, even if your home state bars gay marriage, you can get married in Mass. You can still be in trouble for it in your home state, but it's okay in Massachusetts.Again, it's an example of why we need to settle this nationally. People need to know that their status as a family is consistent from one state to the next - for example, if a gay couple is vacationing in a non-gay marriage state, and one becomes ill, would the other be barred from their hospital room by a 'immediate family only' rule?
stephley stephley 8 years
Dave, it is/was all about using different laws to void something you don't approve. Mitt didn't like that his state was allowing gay marriage, so as he governor he dredge up the old law to get in the way of the new. The only people who could take advantage of the new law were people whose home states did not bar gay marriage. Now, even if your home state bars gay marriage, you can get married in Mass. You can still be in trouble for it in your home state, but it's okay in Massachusetts. Again, it's an example of why we need to settle this nationally. People need to know that their status as a family is consistent from one state to the next - for example, if a gay couple is vacationing in a non-gay marriage state, and one becomes ill, would the other be barred from their hospital room by a 'immediate family only' rule?
stephley stephley 8 years
Raci, I don't feel attacked and the only reason I would include marriage as a human right is because it is traditionally how society configures love and family building and I think everyone has a basic right to love and family - you cold-hearted putz.
UnDave35 UnDave35 8 years
So, if gay marriage is illegal in my state,then how can they get one in Mass? I thought the whole point of allowing out of state persons to come over was to avoid the law. Am I missing the point?(probably)
UnDave35 UnDave35 8 years
So, if gay marriage is illegal in my state,then how can they get one in Mass? I thought the whole point of allowing out of state persons to come over was to avoid the law. Am I missing the point? (probably)
Jillness Jillness 8 years
I guess from my perspective, if the Constitution doesn't define marriage at all, then why would you need to amend IT to make gay marriage a possibility? They didn't have to amend the Constitution to recognize interracial marriage, did they? Wouldn't it just be a bill and not an amendment?
popgoestheworld popgoestheworld 8 years
UnDave, I think the answer lies here: "The law prohibits couples from obtaining marriage licenses if they can't legally wed in their home states."From that quote, it sounds to me like if you can legally wed in your own state, you can get your license from Mass. Just my interpretation.lilkimbo, I agree I would not put marriage as a human right. Stephley this isn't an attack on you at all, but I think that term is really overused in general. I too feel it belittles "true" human rights. I'm with Jill in the confusion about why a constitutional amendment would be required. I guess I would say that equal rights would already cover it? Couldn't the court interpret the constitution one way and thus states would be forced to change the laws without an amendment? Honestly, I know next to nothing about the process. I am very curious though.
popgoestheworld popgoestheworld 8 years
UnDave, I think the answer lies here: "The law prohibits couples from obtaining marriage licenses if they can't legally wed in their home states." From that quote, it sounds to me like if you can legally wed in your own state, you can get your license from Mass. Just my interpretation. lilkimbo, I agree I would not put marriage as a human right. Stephley this isn't an attack on you at all, but I think that term is really overused in general. I too feel it belittles "true" human rights. I'm with Jill in the confusion about why a constitutional amendment would be required. I guess I would say that equal rights would already cover it? Couldn't the court interpret the constitution one way and thus states would be forced to change the laws without an amendment? Honestly, I know next to nothing about the process. I am very curious though.
UnDave35 UnDave35 8 years
I won't get into the whole gay marriage debate, as we all know where I stand. I'm curious to know if MA is going to allow hetero marriages from people who are out of state? Doesn't that seem like discrimination to allow one group,but not the other?
lilkimbo lilkimbo 8 years
Well, gay marriages could be recognized by the federal government, but it would require a constitutional amendment to mandate that all states grant gay marriages, if that makes sense.
Dermatologists Reveal Easy Ways to Treat Under-Eye Circles Once and For All
Halsey Shouts Out Blink-182 in New Her Chainsmokers Collaboration
10 Tips on Turning Your Rental Into a Home
This Dressy Leggings Style Is Completely Work-Appropriate
What Every Tall Woman Should Know Before Shopping For Jeans
10 Ways to Seriously Upgrade Frozen Veggie Burgers
Justin Bieber Once Gave Zac Efron Some Important Advice

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

From Our Partners
Latest Love
X