|
|
May 21, 2013
|
|
The Bigots Are Coming! The Bigots Are Coming!Posted on Jun 21, 2007BOSTON—Back in 2004, a month before the first wedding bells rang for same-sex couples, then-Gov. Mitt Romney offered his opinion that “Massachusetts should not become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage.” It wasn’t that he wanted to protect Massachusetts’ reputation. He wanted to protect the country from what he regarded as Massachusetts’ folly. For that purpose Romney unearthed a 1913 law that said couples couldn’t be married here unless the unions would be legal in their home states. I can’t imagine an Elvis impersonator driving a pink Cadillac of to-be-weds up Beacon Hill, nor do I equate the push for marriage equality with the quickie wedding. But I can envision a Paul Revere character ushering couples into Old North Church or a Minuteman welcoming them on the Lexington Green. Like, totally. I was in Lexington and it took me over. The 1913 law has a rather murky past. It was ostensibly designed so that couples couldn’t escape the marriage laws in their home state. But the law was passed in the aftermath of a front-page scandal involving black heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson’s marriage to a 19-year-old white woman. It had the racist whiff of anti-miscegenation. Fast-forward to last week. The Massachusetts Legislature finally and firmly ended the push for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. In three years, 10,000 couples have married, the sky hasn’t fallen and pro-marriage legislators were not turned out of office, and we now live with gay neighbors, friends and co-workers who are married. Who wants to take back the stemware? Advertisement Las Vegas? Mecca? So far, little Rhode Island is the only state that allows gay residents to wed in Massachusetts. We are the Las Vegas of Rhode Island. But some are saying that if we overturn the 1913 law, the marrying hordes will come and go back home with a license and a lawsuit. Whether you like or loathe the idea, repealing the 1913 law isn’t likely to have much effect. There are at least 44 states with no chance of recognition because of statutes or constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage. As Joanna Grossman, a family law professor at Hofstra who has written extensively on this subject, says, “There’s nothing much one state can do to change the national landscape.” Gay couples can already get married in Canada and come home unmarried. So, too, couples could get married in Massachusetts but go home and be unmarried in, say, Michigan. “What makes marriage legally important is recognition by the jurisdiction in which you live,” says Grossman. “There’s the chance that couples would use this to litigate in a handful of other states like New York. There is the chance that, in a few states, a court might rule that even though we don’t permit same-sex marriage, we recognize it if valid elsewhere.” But by and large, what would happen is this: “Massachusetts would suffer a brief economic boom and that would be the end of it.” Mine may be the only state with full-fledged marriage for some years. It may be less of a launching pad than a laboratory. We need laws for 2007, not 1913. But all in all, don’t confuse us with Vegas or Mecca. What is it the Chamber of Commerce likes to label us? The cradle of liberty. Like, totally. New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By Conservative Yankee, May 27, 2008 at 6:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The 50% of remaining (non gay) men would fuck 50% more women, and there would be no change (unfortunately) in our population numbers.
However a 50% decline in population (over a century) would not be a bad thing.
Report thisBy Dan Uu Noel, June 27, 2007 at 5:46 pm Link to this comment
Sexual freedom is moving ahead…quite slowly…but ahead.
Same-sex marriage and divorce are slowly becoming acceptable…but a few more taboos need to be broken still: sex change, polygamy, polyandry, incest, D/s, etc.
Let’s hope that the next step lumps together all aspects of human sexuality, treats them as normal aspects of the human condition, and puts the government’s role where it belongs: at the service of all of us, with our respective and diverse sexual needs.
Love is stronger than fear…
Report thisBy Blueboy1938, June 27, 2007 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment
Article IV, Section 1, of the U. S. Constitution states: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” The intention of this provision was to overcome the chaotic situation under the Articles of Confederation that let states do pretty much as they pleased when choosing to accept or ignore the laws of the other states. It is a central issue of federalism. Do away with that, and we degenerate back into the squabbling mess of pre-Constitutional United States. That apparently doesn’t seem to bother those states that have selectively voted not only to deny same-sex marriage to their citizens but to nullify marriages performed elsewhere. That is clearly discriminatory on the basis of sex, as marriages of heterosexual couples are not treated the same. As always, discrimination is just fine, if it is towards a group that you don’t like very much. In the past it was those “uppity” African Americans who wanted to marry the white persons they loved. Can’t do that anymore, so let’s shove it to the gays and lesbians. The miracle is that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court saw through that and applied the Commonwealth Constitution equally. So it will indeed trigger lawsuits in home states if Massachusetts does away with the antique law that was meant to thwart inter-racial marriages. However, the U. S. Constitution trumps discriminatory state law and “full faith and credit” contradictions.
Report thisBy peacefull1, June 24, 2007 at 7:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
That’s what we get when faith is mixed with reality
Report thisBy Skruff, June 24, 2007 at 7:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
#80824 by fattdaddy on 6/23 at 8:58 pm
“No hate here, its all love, tough love….”
I sure agree that “tough love” the panacea of the 1980’s was based in this type of thought process.
“Do ‘em like Hitler did the Jews” a thought steeped in love for one’s fellow man, and in their best interests?
Wow! what a concept.
Report thisBy great_satan, June 24, 2007 at 12:01 am Link to this comment
There’s a cure for you too, Fattdaddy. Its called the ignore button.
Report thisBy fattdaddy, June 23, 2007 at 9:58 pm Link to this comment
There is a cure for queers, do them like Hitler done the Jews…Exterminate them…Put them all in one state and drop a nuk on their happy little community…
That would cure part of our social disease…
Next would be the abortionists…
No hate here, it’s all love, tough love….
Report thisBy John Hanks, June 22, 2007 at 3:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Bigotry works. I refer to the right-wing Republicans as “the filth”. I have nothing but a black hatred for them.
Report thisBy Skruff, June 22, 2007 at 7:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Please all you folks who look to Massachusetts as “liberal wonderland” don’t believe it. Those of us who know the old girl appriciate her “eccentricities” but don’t mistake her for utopia. She’s as biggoted as Mississippi, she just hides it better.
Please note the Mass legislature specifically blocked a citizen based referendum on Gay marriage and passed the bill government SANS citizen imput,
Some years ago the legislature did a similar end-run around citizen imput and passed a seatbealt law which was subsequently repealed under referendum. The legislature quickly re-imposed seat belt laws, and has since imposed a ban on citizen based referendums concerning “traffic laws”
My only surprise in all of this is that those frisky Yankees haven’t yet expunged that legislature…. give ‘em time
Report thisBy THOMAS BILLIS, June 21, 2007 at 10:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Homophobia is a disease that runs rampant in America.Thank God it looks like Massachussetts has been cured.This blog should not be on a political website it should be in The Journal of Medicine.Maybe all of America can take the cure and we can once and for all time rid this country of homophobia.
Report thisTo the second point since it is probably not possible for Jack Johnson to come back and terrorize Mass by marrying a white woman I say check his gravesite and repeal the 1913 prohibition.
By Guppy Ermine Fallows, June 21, 2007 at 6:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
What’s the point of being an empire if American’s afraid of its own shadow?
. It’s always the fairies in the garden or the barbarians at the gate. Never the Emperor, himself. All seems futile anyway. I have so much lead in my blood; I’m bound to go mental, kidnap Rick Santorum at gunpoint and force him to conjegate our vows in Canada. But what to do with the Panopticon? My television is HUGE!
Report thisBy Dieter Heymann, June 21, 2007 at 1:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Gays and lesbians in our armed forces have been and are getting killed by our enemies. It is therefore a gigantic miscarriage of justness that individuals of this group are denied a (civil) marriage license. Because homosexuals obviously have not “destroyed” our armed forces, they cannot possibly destroy our much more rubust civil society and “marriage”. Hence no state has a rational justification to deny a marriage licence to homosexual partners. The statutory denials are therefore plainly discriminatory and must be terminated a.s.a.p.
Report thisBy P. T., June 21, 2007 at 10:37 am Link to this comment
Massachusetts is bigoted against polygamy—polygaphobes !!!
Report thisBy TDoff, June 21, 2007 at 10:29 am Link to this comment
The Bigots are here. The Bigots are here.
The proper thing for all Mass. citizens to do would be to marry a displaced Iraqi, regardless of sex, and give them the gift of US citizenship and a home here in the good old US of A, where they will be protected from the horrors of the invasion of their homeland by the good old US of A.
Report thisBy Mark in NY, June 21, 2007 at 10:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
If there were such a thing as a god I’d thank it for there being at least one state in this country showing some courage and good sense in the face of religious-based bigotry.
Report thisBy Skruff, June 21, 2007 at 9:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
For 200 plus years the states have recognized the marriages from other States. If gay marriages in Massachusetts are not recognized what about straight marriages? Can a state, say Missisippi, create a law that bans Protestant/Catholic marriages? At what point do we become the disunited states?
There are other state responsibilities;
Can a state, say California, reject a driver’s license issued in Connecticut? Can Arizona collect State tax on items delivered to non-taxed New Hampshire? Is a child born in New York a citizen of the United States? or is he just a New Yorker who must show a passport when traveling to Pennsylvania.
I’m all for dis-uniting. I would much rather live in the United States of New York and New England without the hassel of having to deal with all the southern and western crapola…
How about it… are we US citizens, or only home-staters?
Report thisBy Leefeller, June 21, 2007 at 8:35 am Link to this comment
Death and distruction in Iraq and some are worried about same sex marriage?
Report thisTake your eyes off the real issues the deaths caused by Bush;s war. The Constitution and our rights and liberties have been attacked, Gonzo is still their, the liars in charge, smoke and mirrors again.