A 1913 Law Dies to Better Serve Gay Marriages
The New York Times
By Pam Belluck and Katie Zezima
July 16, 2008
BOSTON — Massachusetts may have been the first state to legalize
same-sex marriage for its residents, but when California last month invited
out-of-state gay and lesbian couples to get married, the potential economic
benefits did not go unnoticed here. Now Massachusetts wants to extend the same
invitation.
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.
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.
“We now have this added pressure, given what’s happened in California, that
we really think that it is a good thing that we be prepared to receive the
economic benefit,” State Senator Dianne Wilkerson, a Democrat who sponsored the
repeal bill, said Tuesday after the vote.
Ms. Wilkerson added, “For me it wasn’t the most important basis of the
argument, but it certainly is a perk.”
Legislators and same-sex marriage advocates said their primary motivation for
the repeal was to allow all same-sex couples an opportunity to marry and to
revoke a law that many saw as discriminatory. The law, believed to have been
designed to uphold other states’ bans on interracial marriage, was invoked in
2004 by Gov. Mitt Romney, a same-sex marriage opponent who said he did not want
to make Massachusetts “the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage.”
Kofi Jones, spokeswoman for Secretary Dan O’Connell of Housing and Economic
Development, said: “The administration believes repealing this discriminatory
and antiquated law is simply the right thing to do. The study does show, though,
that this action could also bring some added economic benefits to the
commonwealth, which would be welcomed.”
Ted Jarrett, owner of the Old Mill on the Falls Bed and Breakfast in
Hatfield, Mass., which plays host to many same-sex weddings, said: “Obviously it
would help us from a business standpoint. I kind of feel like there will be
people coming in.”
Politically, the California decision and a decision by Gov. David A. Paterson
of New York to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, gave
supporters of same-sex marriage here the fuel they needed to press for repeal
without fear that it would become a lightning rod in the presidential election,
advocates said.
“We were collectively thinking about planning to wait until after the
November elections because we were concerned that the far right, the Karl Rove
types of people, would once again try to use this issue as a wedge issue in the
campaign,” said Marc Solomon, campaign director for MassEquality. “Once the
California decision happened and out-of-state couples could go to California,
there was no reason not to move forthwith.”
Arline Isaacson, co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political
Caucus, said that many lawmakers felt the California ruling made support for
lifting the ban far less controversial, and that the economic argument did not
hurt.
“Like other states, it’s tough fiscal times,” Ms. Isaacson said, “and
everyone recognizes that this will be an economic boon for Massachusetts because
every gay person who comes here to marry, most won’t come alone.”
She continued, “They will bring their families and their friends and all
those people will stay at the hotels, eat at the restaurants, shop at the stores
and hire caterers and florists and musicians.”
The study predicts that most of the couples — about 21,000 — will come from
New York, nearly half of the 48,761 same-sex couples in that state.
Alan Van Capelle, the executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda, a gay
rights group in New York, said that he could not speculate on the numbers and
that “there are a certain percentage of people like myself” who will “wait till
New York issues marriage licenses.”
But, he predicted “a lot of Jet Blue cancellations from LaGuardia to Laguna
and some Amtrak purchases from New York to Boston,” adding, “Tanglewood, the Red
Lion Inn, how do you say no?”
Mr. Van Capelle and other advocates said they expected the Massachusetts
decision to galvanize efforts to persuade other states, particularly those near
Massachusetts, to legalize same-sex marriage.
Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, said
that in a few states “there may be some impact.” But, he said, citing the 26
states with constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage: “I wouldn’t say
the other side is gaining momentum. I would say that the other side has just
come up for air with the California ruling after a long period of regression.”
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said the repeal
“will open up a Pandora’s box of lawsuits to challenge the marriage requirements
in other states.”
Mr. Mineau added, “And one thing for sure, it will affirm the need for a
federal marriage amendment.”
