Senate easily passes 1913 law repeal bill on voice vote; DiMasi wants House vote soon

House Speaker Sal DiMasi hopes to pass a bill in the House repealing the statute known as the 1913 law before the session ends July 31, following on the heels of the Senate passage of the repeal bill July 15. Passage of the bill in the House would bring Massachusetts one step closer to opening its doors to same-sex couples from across the country to get married in the state. DiMasi spokesman David Guarino said the speaker had not yet decided when to bring the bill up for a vote.

"The speaker is supportive of the repeal. He thinks the so-called 1913 law is outdated and unfair and should be repealed this session. When exactly that will come to the floor I can't say at this point," said Guarino.

House leadership has polled members on their stance on the repeal bill, but Guarino declined to release the results of the poll or to say how much support there is in the House for repealing the 1913 law.

The Senate passed the repeal bill on a voice vote with no fanfare or dissent. The 1913 law prohibits out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would be considered void in their home state. The origins of the bill are in question, but advocates and legal scholars have argued that it was passed in 1913 at least in part to prevent interracial couples from marrying in Massachusetts to skirt their home state's anti-miscegenation laws.

Senators in favor of repealing the bill discussed the law's allegedly racist origins during remarks prior to the vote. They argued that its repeal would help Massachusetts close the door on the last vestiges of anti-miscegenation laws.

"In some respects this bill is the final nail in coffin of what I think were the darkest days in Massachusetts," said state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson (D-Boston), the champion of the repeal legislation. She described the national outcry over the marriage of Jack Johnson, the first black world heavyweight champion boxer, to a white woman in 1911 and argued that the historical record shows that Massachusetts passed the 1913 law and that other states passed similar laws to prevent interracial couples from evading their own state's laws.

Wilkerson said it was "ironic and maybe prophetic" that the repeal legislation came before the Senate just two months after the death of Mildred Loving, one half of the plaintiff couple in the landmark Loving vs. Virginia case that prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down anti-miscegenation laws in 1967. Wilkerson read aloud a statement that Loving issued in June 2007 announcing her support for marriage equality for same-sex couples and describing the marriage equality movement as part of the same struggle as her own fight for marriage rights.

Wilkerson then argued that lawmakers who support marriage equality as a matter of principle should support the 1913 law repeal effort.

"The fact is that if you believe in freedom for the people of Massachusetts you must support it for people everywhere," said Wilkerson.

The 1913 repeal bill now moves to the House, where advocates say it is unclear when there will be a vote on the bill. Marc Solomon, executive director of MassEquality, said he expected the House to take up the bill "soon, very soon," but he said it may not be this week. Bill Conley, lobbyist for the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said that ultimately House leadership would determine when the bill comes up for a vote.

"We don't have a clear sense of what [the House's] schedule is for the short time that is left," said Conley. The legislative session ends on July 31. House Speaker Sal DiMasi has publicly expressed his support for the repeal legislation.

Openly gay state Rep. Liz Malia (D-Jamaica Plain), who led a successful effort to pass the MassHealth Equality Bill in the House on the same day the Senate acted on the 1913 law (see "Another pro-equality legislative victory,") emphasized the need for the House to finish off the job of wiping it off the books.

"We have a lot of really crucial issues to look at and I think a lot of people have looked at all the different aspects of this and said, first of all the 1913 amendment is absurd, it's obscene, and we need to fix it," said Malia in an interview after the Senate vote.

"There's also a history of a whole lot of antiquated law still in the books, but this one definitely should be addressed; we know enough about it now to deal with it. And I think an awful lot of people are ready to move forward in a positive way," she added.

The 1913 law was passed nearly a century ago, but it had not been enforced for decades when former Gov. Mitt Romney revived it in the run-up to the beginning of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2004. He publicly warned that if same-sex couples from other states could marry in Massachusetts, the state would become "the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage."

Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the 1913 law, but in 2006 the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) upheld the law. The court ruled that it only applied to states that explicitly ban recognition of same-sex marriage. Currently couples from California, Rhode Island, and New Mexico may marry in Massachusetts.

Opponents of marriage equality were unsurprised at the outcome of the vote but predicted that repeal of the 1913 law would precipitate legal chaos in Massachusetts.

"If this would carry and couples come from all over the other 48 states to get married here they're going to go back to their states and be in a legal quagmire," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, speaking to reporters following the vote. "And then divorces; we've already seen what's happened in civil unions in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, it's chaos, and most destructive on families and children. And ultimately this is all about what is best for the children."

But Wilkerson told reporters after the vote that the repeal bill was a relatively easy sell to lawmakers, particularly after the much more controversial vote in June 2007 to vote down an amendment to the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. She said lawmakers' comfort with the vote was evident by the absence of any objections during the voice vote.

"As you heard, the minority leader [Sen. Richard Tisei] supported it, and that was pretty much the message we got from members today. We don't need to do it, let's get to the real tough stuff," said Wilkerson.

A handful of other senators in addition to Wilkerson spoke out in favor of the repeal bill from the floor of the Senate before the voice vote. State Sen. Cynthia Stone Creem (D-Newton) said that her support for repealing the 1913 law stems foremost as a matter of conscience, but she also pointed to a recent study released by the state's Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development predicting that the state would see $111 million in new spending in the state over the next three years if couples from out of state were allowed to marry in Massachusetts. Last May California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger told reporters he expects same-sex marriage in California, which has no residency requirement for marriage and no law similar to the 1913 law, to boost the state's economy. Creem said as chair of the Revenue Committee she felt obligated to point out that at a time when the state faces declining revenues the repeal of the 1913 law would create a "needed economic stimulus for the wedding tourist industries in the state of Massachusetts."

Sen. Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford) urged his colleagues to reject the 1913 law, saying, "There are very few laws on the books that I can say I'm ashamed they're on the books," and that the 1913 law was one of them.

Sen. Harriette Chandler (D-Worcester) called the 1913 law "a remnant of a very shameful period in our history."
Solomon said MassEquality did not press the Senate to hold a voice vote, as opposed to a roll call vote, on the 1913 repeal bill. He said the lack of dissent on the voice vote signals the strong support for striking the 1913 law from the books.

"What it shows is it was unanimous or nearly unanimous," said Solomon. "There was no one who was willing to stand up in opposition. I think that's what it demonstrates."

--Bay Windows intern Max Gelber contributed to this report.--