News :: GLBT
Victory! House passes 1913 law repeal in roll call vote by Ethan Jacobs
associate editorTuesday Jul 29, 2008 UPDATE 8 p.m.
The bill to repeal the 1913 law is on its way to Governor Deval Patrick, who will sign it into law.
The bill cleared a final hurdle this afternoon, when the House of Representatives passed the bill on a roll call vote after about 45 minutes of debate. The vote was 118-35, with five members not voting.
The 1913 law prohibits out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would be considered void in their home state, and it has prevented most same-sex couples from out of state from marrying in Massachusetts. LGBT advocates and their allies in the legislature have argued that the law was passed in 1913 in part to prevent interracial couples from skirting anti-miscegenationlaws in their home states.
The Senate passed the repeal bill on a voice vote with no fanfare or dissent on July 15.
State Rep. Byron Rushing (D-Boston) began debate on the repeal by giving a history of the law, and disputing statements by those who have said it does not have racist origins."Well sorry. sorry. There was a lot of concern about interracial marriage in this country in 1913," he stated, noting the controversy at the time over Jack Johnson, an African American prizefighter, marrying a white woman. Rushing said news of Johnson’s marriage to a white woman in 1910 prompted a national uproar over the issue of interacial marriage, and in 1913, the same year Massachusetts passed its statute, ten other states passed anti-miscegenation laws.
"This was an issue that was being debated, and people in the [Massachusetts] legislature knew about it," said Rushing.
State Reps. Alice Wolf (D-Cambridge), Robert Spellane (D-Worcester) and . Paul Loscocco (R-Holliston) also spoke in favor of the repealing the law. Loscocco said the 1913 law is offensive not only to out-of-state same-sex couples but to those who reside in Massachusetts, since it singles out same-sex relationships as inherently more suspect than heterosexual ones.
"Equal under the law means just that, equal," said Loscocco.
He also took aim at marriage equality opponents who claim that same-sex marriage was imposed on the state by activist judges. Loscocco said the legislature effectively gave its approval to marriage equality by not taking legislative action against the Goodridge decision and by voting down a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage last June. Loscocco, who formerly was a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage, surprised people in his district and advocates on either side of the marriage issue last June when he switched his vote to help defeat the marriage amendment.
"In reality it was ultimately us, the legislature, that sanctioned same-sex marriage," said Loscocco. On July 23 Loscocco, who is not running for re-election, e-mailed all of his House colleagues and urged them to repeal the bill.
"By not repealing the 1913 law, the Legislature is effectively saying to one limited group of couples legally entitled to be married in Massachusetts (same-sex couples) that civil marriages of this ’type’ only, which theoretically equal under the law to all others, are merely being ’tolerated’ for those residing in Massachusetts and should otherwise be limited under Massachusetts law to ’protect’ the sensibilities of those in other states," wrote Loscocco.
State Rep. Mary Rogeness (R- Longmeadow) spoke against the repeal, stating her concern that underage couples who were not allowed to marry in their home state might come here to get married if the law is repealed. State Reps. Vinny deMacedo (R-Plymouth) and John Lepper also spoke against the repeal. Lepper (R-Attleboro) warned that repealing the law would leave out-of-state couples who marry in Massachusetts "in legal limbo" when they return home.
"It would seem that if the 1913 law is repealed we would be leading ourselves into a legal nightmare," said Lepper.
Following the vote Spellane told Bay Windows that the overwhelming majority was a sign of the strong support for marriage equality in the legislature.
"It shows what we’ve been talking about, that as each day passes more and more people are supportive of the Goodridge decision and the right of gay couples to marry here in the Commonwealth, and today by this vote overwhelmingly more legislators have voted to uphold the rights of same-sex couples throughout the country," said Spellane.
Matt McTighe, political director for MassEquality, credited Spellane and Rushing for leading the charge in the House, and he also said House Speaker Sal DiMasi stood firm in pushing for the vote before the end of the session on July 31.
"Certainly the speaker as well, really pushing, using the leadership and the whole leadership team trying to find time on a very tight calendar with just three days left in the session and a lot of veto overrides and other issues that had to come up, I think the leadership really clamped down and said, ’We’re going to do this, come hell or high water,’ and they did," said McTighe.
Despite the push from leadership and advocates not all of the legislature’s marriage equality supporters cast votes to repeal the 1913 law. One high profile marriage equality supporter, Rep. Angelo Puppolo (D-Wilbraham) voted against repeal. Puppolo, who initially supported the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and switched his vote to defeat it last June, said that he felt the repeal bill went too far in dealing with matters out of state.
"I certainly stand behind my vote for marriage equality. If that issue were to come up again I’d be there 100 percent," Puppolo told Bay Windows. "I feel my role as a legislator is to protect the rights of the citizens that reside within the Commonwealth’s borders. ...This particular law I feel just went a little too far beyond our borders, simple as that."
Puppolo said he heard from very few constituents about the 1913 repeal bill, but McTighe said he believes Puppolo was concerned about the reaction a "yes" vote might have produced. Puppolo came under fire for his vote against the marriage amendment last year, with anti-gay activists placing a billboard in his district attacking him for his switch.
"I just know he took a lot of heat after his marriage vote and I think was just a little concerned about what the fallout would be from something like this," said McTighe.
A few supporters of the marriage amendment, including Rep. Paul Donato (D-Medford) and Rep. Jeff Perry (R-Sandwich), switched sides to vote to repeal the 1913 law.
Though passed nearly a century ago, the 1913 law had not been enforced for decades when former Gov. Mitt Romney revived it in the run-up to the beginning of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2004. He publicly warned that if same-sex couples from other states could marry in Massachusetts, the state would become "the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage."
Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the 1913 law, but in 2006 the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) upheld the law. The court ruled that it only applied to states that explicitly ban recognition of same-sex marriage. Currently couples from California, Rhode Island, and New Mexico may marry in Massachusetts.
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which spearheaded the failed campaign for a marriage amendment in 2007, said he believes the repeal of the 1913 law will encourage activists from other states to come to Massachusetts, get married, and file suit for recognition at home.
"We really believe that our opponents nationwide will use this to bring couples from other states, to go back to those states and begin legal challenges to the laws, certainly the DOMAS [Defense of Marriage Acts] and even the constitutional amendments, perhaps, in those states," said Mineau. Nonetheless what this proves to us is the absolute necessity for a federal marrage amendment."
Ethan Jacobs can be reached at ejacobs@baywindows.com
|
|
|
Email
Print
Share
