BOSTON
—
Citing
a
1913
law
that
prohibits
Massachusetts
from
marrying
an
out-of-state
couple
whose
marriage
would
not
be
recognized
in
their
home
state,
Republican
Gov.
Mitt
Romney
announced
last
weekend
he
will
enforce
the
old
statute
unless
governors
and
attorneys
general
in
any
of
the
other
49
states
or
the
District
of
Columbia
say
they
will
permit
Massachusetts
to
marry
a
gay
couple
from
their
state.
It
is
not
clear
how
the
attorneys
general
of
Maryland
and
Washington
D.C.’s
equivalent
—
the
mayor’s
corporation
counsel
—
will
respond
to
Romney’s
pronouncements.
“Massachusetts
should
not
become
the
Las
Vegas
of
same-sex
marriage,”
Romney
told
the
New
York
Times
last
week.
“We
do
not
intend
to
export
our
marriage
confusion
to
the
entire
nation.”
The
obscure
1913
law,
known
as
the
“reverse
evasion”
statute,
bans
Massachusetts
from
granting
marriage
licenses
to
out-of-state
residents
who
cannot
legally
marry
in
their
home
states.
According
to
Romney’s
interpretation
of
the
law,
the
statue
applies
to
residents
in
the
remaining
49
states
and
the
District
of
Columbia
since
no
other
state
expressly
permits
gay
marriage.
Romney
said
his
administration
will
soon
send
out
letters
to
the
49
attorneys
general
asking
them
if
gay
couples
from
their
state
can
wed
in
Massachusetts.
Tony
Bullock,
communications
director
for
D.C.
Mayor
Anthony
Williams,
confirmed
that
the
mayor
has
received
a
legal
opinion
from
Robert
Spagnoletti,
the
city’s
corporation
counsel,
on
whether
D.C.
law
permits
the
city
to
recognize
same-sex
marriages
performed
elsewhere.
He
said
that
the
document
would
be
made
public
in
the
next
few
weeks.
“I
don’t
see
anything
to
prevent
D.C.
gay
couples
from
going
up
to
Massachusetts
and
coming
back
here,”
Bullock
said.
“At
some
point,
the
mayor
and
Mr.
Spagnoletti
agree
that
this
question
of
recognition
will
face
the
District
government.
That’s
the
basis
for
Spagnoletti’s
research.
He
shared
his
legal
opinion
with
the
mayor,
and
I
suspect
that
at
some
point,
in
the
next
week
or
two,
the
mayor
and
city
administrators
will
determine
what
the
position
of
the
city
is.”
Kevin
Enright,
spokesperson
for
Maryland
Attorney
General
J.
Joseph
Curran,
said
he
was
working
on
finding
an
answer
as
to
whether
or
not
the
state
would
recognize
a
Maryland
gay
couple’s
Massachusetts
marriage
license.
While
Maryland
does
not
have
a
Defense
of
Marriage
Act
and
does
not
constitutionally
ban
gay
marriage,
the
state’s
Family
Code
does
not
provide
explicitly
for
same-sex
unions.
Calls
to
the
office
of
Virginia
Attorney
General
Jerry
Kilgore,
a
conservative
and
longtime
opponent
of
gay
rights,
were
not
returned
by
press
time.
Dyana
Mason,
executive
director
of
Equality
Virginia,
the
statewide
gay
rights
group,
noted
that
Virginia
already
bans
the
recognition
of
same-sex
marriage
“and
the
incidents
of
such
a
marriage
celebrated
in
another
jurisdiction.”
Evan
Wolfson,
executive
director
of
Freedom
to
Marry,
said
the
1913
statute
was
used
largely
to
prevent
interracial
marriages.
He
criticized
Romney
for
dusting
off
the
old
statute.
“For
him
to
resurrect
this
artifact
from
the
deepest
days
of
discrimination
is
completely
inconsistent
with
the
Massachusetts
Constitution,”
Wolfson
said.
“It’s
a
statute
that
was
a
part
of
a
campaign
to
discriminate
against
interracial
marriage.”
While
trying
to
stop
out-of-state
gay
couples
from
applying
for
a
Massachusetts
marriage
license,
Romney’s
staff
has
also
instructed
city
and
town
clerks
to
resign
if
they
are
not
comfortable
performing
same-sex
wedding
ceremonies,
which
are
set
to
begin
on
May
17.
Meanwhile,
the
executive
branch
has
ordered
changes
to
the
state’s
marriage
application,
replacing
“bride”
and
“groom”
with
“Party
A”
and
“Party
B,”
and
adding
new
questions
to
the
forms
asking
couples
for
“evidence
of
where
a
person
resides
and
intends
to
continue
to
reside.”
The
new
form
also
asks
if
couples
have
ever
joined
together
in
a
civil
union
or
domestic
partnership
and
says
that
the
marriage
of
an
out-of-state
gay
couple
that
does
not
intend
to
move
to
Massachusetts
will
be
“null
and
void.”
While
officials
in
the
Romney
administration
say
the
governor
is
on
firm
legal
footing
with
his
interpretation
of
the
law,
the
application
of
the
old
statute
could
open
the
state
up
to
a
potential
lawsuit.
Boston
College
law
professor
Charles
H.
Baron
said
that
based
on
federal
and
state
legal
precedents,
a
law
that
is
discriminatorily
applied,
even
if
it
is
not
intended
to
discriminate,
could
conflict
with
both
the
Massachusetts
and
U.S.
constitutions.
“Courts
could
decide
on
the
basis
of
its
own
precedent
that
a
law
being
applied
with
animus,
with
a
direction
to
oppress
a
particular
class,
is
unconstitutional,”
Baron
said.
Next
door
to
the
Bay
State,
legislators
in
Maine
this
week
passed
an
expansive
domestic
partnership
bill,
which
Gov.
John
Baldacci
is
expected
to
sign.
The
measure
provides
for
a
registry
and
affords
couples
inheritance
rights,
next-of-kin
status,
victim’s
compensation,
and
guardian
and
conservator
rights.
The
measure
passed
the
Senate
on
Tuesday
by
an
18-14
vote;
the
House
passed
it
earlier
in
the
month,
84-58.
If
the
DP
bill
becomes
law,
Maine
will
become
the
fifth
state
to
pass
statewide
laws
that
provide
rights
to
unmarried
couples.
...
 |
|
|
|
