Mass. Aims To Open Gay Marriage Floodgates

State Senate Votes To Allow Same-Sex Couples From Other States; House Expected To Vote This Week

(AP)  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.

The House is expected to vote on the repeal measure later this week. The Senate action came on a voice vote.

After Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay marriages in 2004 under a court order, then-Gov. Mitt Romney ordered town clerks to enforce the then-little-known 1913 law and deny licenses to out-of-state couples.

That move blocked Maine residents Michael Thorne, 55, and James Theberge, 50, from getting married in Massachusetts four years ago. They were among eight out-of-state gay couples who sued but lost in 2006 when the same court that allowed gay marriage refused to toss out the 1913 law.

Now Thorne and Theberge, who have been together 25 years and have two children, are hoping for an August wedding.

"If Gov. (Deval) Patrick signs the bill, we'll be at the Provincetown City Hall," said Thorne, who called Maine's domestic partnership law a poor substitute.

The governor, whose 18-year-old daughter announced publicly last month that she is a lesbian, supports repealing the law. Patrick, the state's first black governor, and other critics of the 95-year-old statute say it carries a racist taint.

The law dates to a time when the majority of states still outlawed interracial marriages, and backers of repeal said the law was intended to smooth relations with those states. Massachusetts has allowed interracial marriages since 1843.

Dianne Wilkerson, the state Senate's lone black member, said repeal was long overdue.

"This is one of the most pernicious statutes on our books," said Wilkerson, a Boston Democrat. "In some respects this bill puts the final nail in the coffin of those dark days."

Another factor driving the repeal effort in Massachusetts was the recent embrace of same-sex marriage by California, which has no residency requirement for obtaining a marriage license.

Opponents of gay marriage said there was no evidence the 1913 law has a racist heritage. They said keeping the law in place was key to preventing gay marriage from spreading to other states, many of which have passed laws or amended their constitution to bar same-sex marriage.

"The Massachusetts Senate has no right to infringe on the internal issues of how other states define marriage, but that's exactly what they voted today to do," said Kris Mineau, president of Massachusetts Family Institute.

Gay marriage foes including Mineau said activists are deliberately portraying the law as racist to speed its repeal.

"Legislators were pressured unscrupulously by same-sex marriage activists to dismantle this law or be branded racists," he said.

But advocates say the segregation-era law was clearly intended to abet discrimination.

Wilkerson said the law was adopted a time of racial tension including a national scandal over black heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson's marriage to Lucille Cameron, who was white.

The law makes no explicit racial reference, but outlaws marriages by couples from other jurisdictions if the nuptials "would be void if contracted in such other jurisdiction."

An analysis by the state Office of Housing and Economic Development found repealing the law would draw thousands of couples to Massachusetts, boosting the economy by $111 million, creating 330 jobs and generating $5 million in taxes and fees over three years.

[honestabe8]

noseonsurface: demonic spirit? still reading comic books again, i see. sexual orientation is not a choice, acting on it is.

[dmhphils]

Gay marriage foes including Mineau said activists are deliberately portraying the law as racist to speed its repeal.


question: How is it racist?

Racist is color of skin or ethnic origin. Homosexuality is behavior and therefore is learned and when learned results in the habitation within the human body of demonic spirits of perversion and lust.

You ever wonder why all the hoomoos have that certain twinkle in the eyes.....yea, ya know when they curl their eyelashes just so....it''s a demonic spirit. That is why they all act the same.

[dedad1]

BTW Caeric- I don''t feel superior to anyone. I just posted that to get a reaction. I will keep my sometimes smart a** tendencies out of the debate. (unless it''s really deserved) Apologies to you. ;)

[dedad1]

And what is it drives the action? -dedad1

If we limit this discussion solely to sexual orientation:

It depends on whether someone acts within their nature or against it.

If someone acts solely within their nature, they will be with somone to whom they are emotionally and physically attracted. For the homosexual this is someone of the same gender. For the bisexual it can be someone of either gender. For the heterosexual is it someone of the opposite gender.

If, however, someone acts against their nature, it is usually driven by society and/or religion. As some societies and some religions have no problem with homosexuality, these two factors do not necessarily drive the homosexual or bisexual to act against their nature. In the United States however, these are the two main factors for anti-homosexual behavior.

Posted by Caeric at 08:19 AM : Jul 17, 2008

I''m not sure I see the connection btwn someone acting against their nature and society / religion. Are you saying society/ religion cause or even force them to act? I am responsible for my actions bcos that''s a choice I make. What causes me to act within my nature? Is it not a desire to get what I want, whether within or against my nature?

[caeric]

And what is it drives the action? -dedad1

If we limit this discussion solely to sexual orientation:

It depends on whether someone acts within their nature or against it.

If someone acts solely within their nature, they will be with somone to whom they are emotionally and physically attracted. For the homosexual this is someone of the same gender. For the bisexual it can be someone of either gender. For the heterosexual is it someone of the opposite gender.

If, however, someone acts against their nature, it is usually driven by society and/or religion. As some societies and some religions have no problem with homosexuality, these two factors do not necessarily drive the homosexual or bisexual to act against their nature. In the United States however, these are the two main factors for anti-homosexual behavior.

[caeric]

RE: dedad1''s recent post addressed to me.

Thus my statement: Sometimes, where there is smoke, there''s fire.

Think of it this way. If a something is wrong in a general morality sense (like murder is wrong), then calling someone on it does not / should not lead to one being called a bigot or hatemonger. I know murder is an extreme example, but it is just an example.

However, if something is wrong only in a specific morality sense (the way some people think homosexuality is wrong, usually because of their specific religion, whereas others do not), then someone who is against it attempting to prevent those who are not from having EQUALITY solely because of their beliefs (thereby ''calling someone on it'') can be said to be a hatemonger and bigot depending on their actions in attempting to prevent this thing that they don''t like.

For these specific morality issues, if said person simply states "*I* don''t believe it''s right, but neither will I allow my personal beliefs to limit another person''s rights", then said person is not a hatemonger or bigot.

However, for these specific morality issues, if said person uses their specific beliefs as a basis to limit or deny another person''s rights and/or allow equality, and especially if they do so vociferously, then they are a bigot and *possibly* a hatemonger.

General morality issues are okay as law. Specific morality issues are not.

[dedad1]

Caeric- let me go back to my original post . I''m not saying You are a bigot & a hate monger/ Only that You are considered to be one if you call some one on their offensive behavior, regardless of what that behavior is.

[dedad1]

And what is it drives the action?

[honestabe8]

dedad: ACTIONS are chosen, orientation is not, Having straight *** is a choice, being straight is an orientation. Same goes for g-a-y *** and orientation. I wonder if there are more straight people out there pretending to be gay or gay people pretending to be straight.

[caeric]

Well, I guess that''s that - dedad1

Congratulations on your feelings of superiority simply because you got the last post in (approximately 3 hours after I went to bed by the way).

That, however, does not negate the fallacy of your argument.

Oh, in response to your comment "You left out the first part of my post. Respond to the whole instead of using part of it to fulfill your agenda"

1) I did respond to your whole post. I don''t feel it necessary to quote your whole post in order to respond to it.

2) I have no agenda other than keeping people like you from stepping all over the rights of other people who want nothing more than to be free and equal.

I won''t be responding to this thread again. One cannot educate those who refuse to be educated, and I have better things to do.

"A mind is like a parachute, it only works if it is open."

Have a nice night/day.

[dedad1]

Apparently, noseonsurface thinks orientation is a choice. That view doesn''''t pass the common sense test. Why would someone choose such a thing?

Posted by honestabe8 at 11:29 PM : Jul 16, 2008

What does the bisexual do when looking for a partner? They CHOOSE either a man or a woman. Therefore , they make a choice

[honestabe8]

"...demonic spirits of perversion and lust." reading too many comic books there, noseonsurface...

[honestabe8]

Apparently, noseonsurface thinks orientation is a choice. That view doesn''t pass the common sense test. Why would someone choose such a thing?

[dmhphils]

"This is one of the most pernicious statutes on our books," said Wilkerson, a Boston Democrat. "In some respects this bill puts the final nail in the coffin of those dark days."

You think "those days" were dark......stand by for heavy rolls......the days that are coming will make yesterday look like a picnic in the park.

[dmhphils]

Gay marriage foes including Mineau said activists are deliberately portraying the law as racist to speed its repeal.


question: How is it racist?

Racist is color of skin or ethnic origin. Homosexuality is behavior and therefore is learned and when learned results in the habitation within the human body of demonic spirits of perversion and lust.

[underdogus71]

America is doomed

[wl7bzh]

"Once you give up integrity, everything else is a piece of cake" J.R. Ewing-Dallas

[medmom04]

well good then! everyone''s civil rights SHOULD be acknowledged and protected!

[dedad1]

If Mass. passes this then all other states would have to recognize the marriages because of the full faith and credit clause.

Posted by Red1530 at 06:34 PM : Jul 16, 2008

Ahhh, loopholes

[red1530]

If Mass. passes this then all other states would have to recognize the marriages because of the full faith and credit clause.