The Supreme Judicial Court has been called upon again to weigh in on a crucial facet of gay marriage: should couples from out of state be free to wed in Massachusetts? The SJC heard arguments Thursday regarding a 1913 law that forbids people from outside of Massachusetts to marry if the marriage would not be considered legal in their home states.
Within the state, activists on both sides of the issue are once again sparring over the state constitution and whether the 1913 law, which many legal experts agree was put on the books to bar interracial marriage during the pre-Civil Rights era, is applicable today.
Massachusetts’ Assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks said publicly that the state would uphold the statute because it applied to homosexual and heterosexual couples evenly.
Still, Charles Wagner, co-chair of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association, said he had “grave concerns” about Gov. Mitt Romney’s decision to enforce the early-20th-century law.
“[The statute] has been resurrected to discriminate,” Wagner said. “Even if it was even-handedly applied, it is without doubt unconstitutional now.”
Lisa Barstow, spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Family Institute, a staunch gay marriage opponent, agreed with Sacks’ view that the 1913 law should be upheld.
“We look to the attorney general’s opinion and we agree,” Barstow said. “The law is constitutional and he is defending the law.”
Barstow also said that it would not be fair for people from out of state to be allowed to come to Massachusetts to wed.
“It’s a stretch to say that a person can come from out of state just to marry,” Barstow said.
The Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders argued their case to the Supreme Judicial Court, backing the eight couples that are filing the lawsuit. GLAD’s Director of Public Affairs Carisa Cunningham said GLAD does not agree with Romney’s decision to use the 1913 law to prevent out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts.
“We believe that the Romney administration’s use of this law violates the spirit and letter of the Goodridge decision,” Cunningham said, referring to the SJC decision that declared gay marriage constitutional and paved the way for thousands of same-sex weddings in Massachusetts.
Carisa Cunningham explained that GLAD believes people should be allowed to come in to Massachusetts to marry if they so choose.
“These couples are very knowledgeable,” Cunningham said. “They aren’t coming here blind. They know their states’ laws and what they will be returning to when they go home.”
Cunningham said GLAD isn’t concerned with the laws of other states. “We are focused on what Massachusetts should do,” Cunningham said. “Whenever anyone is in the borders of this state, they should be protected. We are not trying to make any other state change its laws, but to not protect these people when they are in our state is ridiculous.”
Although the governor’s office could not be reached for comment, Romney’s spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom told the Associated Press that “the law is simple.”
“Massachusetts does not get to make marriage law for the other 49 states,” he said.