Anti-interracial law used to block marriages in Massachusetts

[foreigncorrespondent]

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has moved to make sure that same-sex couples from out of state will not be eligible to marry in the US state next month, based on a 1913 statute originally designed to avoid issuing licences to interracial couples.

<snip>

The 1913 law renders "void" any marriage of a visiting couple that would be illegal in their home state. A few weeks ago, Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly suggested that the law might prohibit marriages for couples from the 39 states with a specific "Defence of Marriage Act".

More... http://uk.gay.com/headlines/6171

Let me see, we have had months and months of people telling us that our fight for rights should not be compared to the civil rights movement, yet, a government official is now throwing the same laws at us? Well gee, I don't think I want to hear that they are not one in the same anymore. Obviously they are, if the same laws can be invoked.

[IndianaGreen]

1. It is the same principle, isn't it?

The same bigotry responsible for the anti-miscegenation laws is the one at play against same-sex marriage.

How ironic that the US is the only industrialized Western nation that still denies equality under the law to gays and lesbians while many countries in Europe, including the socialist Zapatero government in Spain, have already adopted or are about to recognize same sex marriages.

[foreigncorrespondent]

4. Yep IG, it really is the same principle...

...only some people will never _get_ that.

It is also sad to say that the U.S. is the only industrialized Western nation left, who doesn't have immigration laws for LGBT folks. And if the FMA is passed, then the PPIA doesn't have a chance of passing, because the FMA outrules any immigration laws.

[LynzM]

2. #$&^%!!!

That's despicable. I can't believe after all the talk of how the two are not comparable, they turn around and do that?!?!! Ok, I can believe it, but WTF are they thinking??!!!!

[Solly Mack]

3. Ever read something and think

"well, that's typical of America"...?

Do ya flinch as the thought crosses your mind? I know I do.

Using a law that stems solely from racism to attack gays and lesbians...
yet denying that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue.

Ain't that America!

[foreigncorrespondent]

5. Unfortunately Solly...

...I find myself doing it a lot since Bush* stole the election.

[dusty64]

11. And in a supposedly

solid Democratic state no less. I lose a bit more hope for this Country everyday.

[Hepburn]

6. Just a thought...

....but what about getting an immediate injunction against this under Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)? That outlawed miscegenation laws over 35 years ago. Have not given it a lot of thought, but it might be worth a try. If miscegenation laws are unConst, then that 1913 law could fall under this and it might be enough ground to grant an injunction. Like I said, just a thought.

[AspenRose]

7. That's what I was thinking

and welcome to DU!

[Hepburn]

8. Hi, and thanks for the welcome!

I was reading Loving the other day because the Washington rally for reproductive rights. Since it's one of the long line of cases on privacy, with abortion rights being threatened again, it was interesting to review. So...when I saw that Mass was gonna use that 1913 law which was in place for enforcing miscegenation laws, it kind of made sense to me that if Loving found miscegenation laws unConst, then how could that 1913 law stand. The elements under Dataphase for an injunction are: Irreparable harm to the moving party; balance of harm between the parties; probability of success on the merits; and public interest. IMO: I can come up with good grounds and arguments on the last two elements, but having problems with the first two. I cannot hit on def arguments that IMO would not be subject to an attack that might be successful - particularly as to the first element. I think I could get by the second one (on privacy grounds)...but the first one is a sticking point for me. Any ideas? Maybe if some of us brain storm, filing a lawsuit and seeking pre-jmt injunctive relief might get somewhere. But not sure on this.

Just thinking out loud here.

[Lexingtonian]

9. It's already being dealt with

Democratic House Rep Ed Spillane filed a bill to repeal the law in the Massachusetts state legislature about a week ago.

The Legislature will probably have to repeal it as part of the package of law alterations they are (still) under deadline to alter by May 17 under the Goodridge verdict court order.

If the Legislature doesn't repeal it, it will be very easy to generate a test case (surely some Massachusetts gay couple intending to marry has one member of the couple still nominally a resident of another state) on May 17 itself. And under the non-discrimination provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution used to justify the Goodridge verdict the supreme court would obviously strike down the law in a New York minute.

The only reason the 1913 law stands is because there has been no legal situation in which it applies since Loving v. Virginia was decided.

[dusty64]

12. I still find it incredible laws

like this are still on any states books. Weren't these types of laws ruled unconstitutional? If so, how can this type of tactic work? I really hope this backfires on that piece of shit sorry excuse for a human romney and shows him for the hateful and bigoted bastard that we all knew he was.

[cleofus1]

10. one size fits all...

Hatred can be a handy thing...
The way I figure it...my marriage will not be affected one little bit by allowing gay people to be married...so just let them....jeeez...