Viva Mass. Vegas

The bill to repeal the 1913 law, which has barred most out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts, has been signed into law. The repeal bill opens the door for couples from across the country to marry in the Bay State; two high-profile couples are already planning their Massachusetts marriages.

The couples, New Hampshire state Rep. Ed Butler and Les Schoof and Maine's Michael Thorne and Jim Theberge, were part of a group of out-of-state plaintiffs who were represented by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) in an unsuccessful lawsuit, known as Cote-Whitacre vs. Department of Public Health, that aimed to strike down the 1913 law in 2004. With the successful House vote to repeal the 1913 law on July 29 both couples said they are looking forward to coming back to Massachusetts and getting legally married. The 1913 law prevents non-resident couples from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would be considered void in their home state.

Thorne said he first learned about the passage of the repeal bill in the House the afternoon of July 29, when a reporter called him for comment while he was driving with the couple's two children, six-year-old Nate and eight-month-old Alec.

"I was pretty choked up, thinking this came out of the blue. And my son [Nate] was sitting in the car, and I said, 'We can get married,' and the baby was next to him, and he said, 'Can we go tomorrow?'" said Thorne. He said he and Theberge, who had lived in Massachusetts for 20 years before moving to Maine a few years ago, plan to marry in Provincetown on Aug. 18, with a close friend officiating the ceremony. Lawmakers attached an emergency preamble to the bill that will make the repeal bill take effect immediately after the governor signs it, rather than after the standard 90-day waiting period.

After the Supreme Judicial Court ruled against the Cote-Whitacre plaintiffs in 2006 Thorne said the couple opted to hold out for marriage in Massachusetts, rather than marry in Canada or seek a civil union in a neighboring state.

"I guess because we lived in Massachusetts, because we live in Maine now, it matters more in Massachusetts. And we both have Canadian roots, and that could have been an option, but going to someplace other than Massachusetts just seemed like a defeat or a second-rate marriage," said Thorne. "[We felt entitled to marry in Massachusetts] by virtue of living in Massachusetts for over 20 years and paying taxes in Massachusetts for 20 years, and that's where we became a family when our first son was born."

Butler said he and Schoof briefly struggled with the decision of whether to marry in Massachusetts. In 2006 the couple had a civil union ceremony in New Hampshire, and they were not certain they wanted to have a second ceremony in Massachusetts.

"And as we talked that through what we realized is that still, no matter what you call it, civil unions are not equality, and marriage is equality," said Butler. "And it made sense to us, having been a part of the lawsuit and having seen the process through, to say, yes, we do want equality and we will take that step and get a marriage in Massachusetts."

Butler and Schoof have not yet set a date, and their work as innkeepers will likely keep them in New Hampshire for the summer, their busiest season, said Butler. But once the summer rush ends the couple hopes to marry in Somerville, where they were denied a marriage license in 2004.

Another Cote-Whitacre plaintiff couple, Mark Pearsall and Paul Trubey of Connecticut, are already legally married in Massachusetts. The couple was married in Worcester in 2004, just before former Gov. Mitt Romney ordered city and town clerks to halt issuing licenses to out-of-staters, and Romney blocked the state from recording their marriage license. Soon after taking office, Patrick reversed Romney's decision, ordering the state to record the marriage licenses of Pearsall and Trubey along with those of 25 out-of-state couples who married before Romney's decision.

"What this means is there no longer will be any cloud over our marriage, about how valid it is," said Pearsall.

Out-of-state couples are not the only ones celebrating the end of the 1913 law. Worcester City Clerk David Rushford said he looks forward to being able to treat all couples seeking a marriage license equally.

"Now we feel a tremendous sense of relief that we will no longer have to have two sets of rules for people based on their orientation," said Rushford, who was a vocal critic of the law when it was resurrected. Worcester was one of several cities that sued unsuccessfully to overturn the 1913 law.

Rushford said several same-sex couples from out of state have come to marry in Worcester, and the clerk's office has not turned them away. Instead, staff explained to couples that they must sign the statement on the marriage license application form indicating their intent to reside in Massachusetts at a future date, and if the couple was willing to sign the office gave them the license. Rushford said with the repeal of the 1913 law he hopes nonresident couples looking to get married in Massachusetts decide to tie the knot in Worcester.

"We certainly hope that people do come to Worcester because we are people involved in public service that values the fact that we are able to treat people equally under the law," said Rushford.

Most likely, Rushford will soon see more non-resident same-sex couples at his counter. A study commissioned by the state Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development predicted that about 32,200 out-of-state couples will pour into the state to get married over the next three years with the repeal of the 1913 law, spending more than $100 million in the state.

Somerville Mayor Joseph Curtatone, whose city also sued the state to overturn the 1913 law, praised the legislature for overturning the 1913 law.

"From the beginning, Somerville was one of several communities that challenged attempts to restrict implementation of the SJC's landmark 2004 ruling on marriage equality," said Curtatone in a statement to Bay Windows. "While completely unjust, the old 1913 law has been one of the weapons opponents have used against cities and towns that stood ready to offer marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I'm very grateful to our legislative delegation for their support of this repeal effort - and, of course, I'm grateful to the legislature as a whole for its votes to end the residency ban. It's a great day for anyone who believes in marriage as an institution and in marriage equality as a fundamental civil right."

The momentum to repeal the 1913 law came in large part from the legalization of marriage for same-sex couples in California. Marriage equality advocates in Massachusetts had held off pushing to overturn the law in deference to the national Democratic Party, which had worked to persuade local lawmakers to defeat a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in 2007. Democrats feared that opening up Massachusetts to same-sex couples from around the country could elevate same-sex marriage into a major campaign issue, hurting Sen. Barack Obama in the November presidential election. Once California, which has no residency restrictions on marriage, began allowing same-sex couples from across the country to come to the state to marry, the concerns about the political impact of repealing the 1913 law were moot. The state's major political leaders, Patrick, House Speaker Sal DiMasi, and Senate President Therese Murray, were all strong opponents of the 1913 law, and worked with LGBT advocates to push a repeal bill through before the end of the session on July 31. Marc Solomon, executive director of MassEquality, said after the California decision he called Patrick's office to ask him to work to repeal the law. Given Patrick's previous order to record the licenses of nonresident same-sex couples that had married here, he needed little convincing.

"To the extent that it might be an issue in the campaign ... it's going to be because of California, not what we do here," said Solomon. "So at that point it was crystal clear that it was the time to move and that's when I called the governor and that's when it got moving."

The 1913 law repeal passed the House on a roll call vote after about 45 minutes of debate by a vote of 119-36 on July 29.

The Senate passed the repeal bill on a voice vote with no fanfare or dissent on July 15.

LGBT advocates and their allies in the legislature have argued that the law was passed in 1913 in part to prevent interracial couples from skirting anti-miscegenation laws in their home states. Rep. Byron Rushing (D-South End) began debate on the repeal by giving a history of the law, and disputing statements by those who have said it does not have racist origins. "Well sorry, sorry. There was a lot of concern about interracial marriage in this country in 1913," he stated, noting the controversy at the time over Jack Johnson, an African American prizefighter, marrying a white woman. Rushing said news of Johnson's marriage in 1910 prompted a national uproar over the issue of interracial marriage. In 1913, the same year Massachusetts passed its statute, 10 other states passed anti-miscegenation laws.

"This was an issue that was being debated, and people in the [Massachusetts] legislature knew about it," said Rushing.

State Reps. Alice Wolf (D-Cambridge), Robert Spellane (D-Worcester) and Paul Loscocco (R-Holliston) also spoke in favor of the repealing the law. Loscocco said the 1913 law is offensive not only to out-of-state same-sex couples but to those who reside in Massachusetts, since it singles out same-sex relationships as inherently more suspect than heterosexual ones.

"Equal under the law means just that, equal," said Loscocco.

State Rep. Mary Rogeness (R- Longmeadow) spoke against the repeal, stating her concern that underage couples who were not allowed to marry in their home state might come here to get married if the law is repealed. State Reps. Vinny deMacedo (R-Plymouth) and John Lepper also spoke against the repeal. Lepper (R-Attleboro) warned that repealing the law would leave out-of-state couples who marry in Massachusetts "in legal limbo" when they return home.

"It would seem that if the 1913 law is repealed we would be leading ourselves into a legal nightmare," said Lepper.

Following the vote Spellane told Bay Windows that the overwhelming majority was a sign of the strong support for marriage equality in the legislature.

"It shows what we've been talking about, that as each day passes more and more people are supportive of the Goodridge decision and the right of gay couples to marry here in the Commonwealth, and today by this vote overwhelmingly more legislators have voted to uphold the rights of same-sex couples throughout the country," said Spellane.

Matt McTighe, political director for MassEquality, credited Spellane and Rushing for leading the charge in the House. He also credited House Speaker Sal DiMasi for "really pushing, using the leadership and the whole leadership team trying to find time on a very tight calendar with just three days left in the session and a lot of veto overrides and other issues that had to come up.

"I think the leadership really clamped down and said, 'We're going to do this, come hell or high water,' and they did," said McTighe.

Despite the push, not all allied legislators supported repealing the 1913 law, for instance, State Rep. Angelo Puppolo (D-Wilbraham). Puppolo believes the repeal bill went too far in dealing with matters out of state.

"I certainly stand behind my vote for marriage equality," Puppolo said in an interview, referencing his vote last year against the marriage amendment. "If that issue were to come up again I'd be there 100 percent," Puppolo told Bay Windows. "I feel my role as a legislator is to protect the rights of the citizens that reside within the Commonwealth's borders. ...This particular law I feel just went a little too far beyond our borders, simple as that."

Puppolo said he heard from very few constituents about the 1913 repeal bill, but McTighe believes Puppolo was concerned about the reaction a "yes" vote might have produced, given that the legislator came under fire for his vote against the marriage amendment, with anti-gay activists placing a billboard in his district branding him a traitor.

"I just know he took a lot of heat after his marriage vote and I think was just a little concerned about what the fallout would be from something like this," said McTighe.

A few supporters of the marriage amendment, including Rep. Paul Donato (D-Medford) and Rep. Jeff Perry (R-Sandwich), switched sides and voted to repeal the 1913 law.

Though passed nearly a century ago, the 1913 law had not been enforced for decades when former Gov. Mitt Romney revived it in the run-up to the implementation of marriage equality in Massachusetts in 2004, warning that Massachusetts would become "the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage," if there was no restriction on non-resident marriages.

In 2006 the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) upheld the law, though it 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.

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which works against rights for LGBT people, believes the repeal of the 1913 law will encourage activists from other states to marry in Massachusetts and then file suit to have their unions recognized by their home states. "What this proves to us is the absolute necessity for a federal marriage amendment," said Mineau.