Comments on: Appeal unlikely on gay marriage ruling

By: Commentator

Commentator — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 05:46:51 +0000

Though, to be fair, that was its historical lineage. But, it is no longer 1913.

By: Commentator

Commentator — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 05:46:02 +0000

Not true, Friedman. The basis for antimiscegenation laws was to preserve White supremacy. That’s what the state of Virginia briefed and argued in Court. I don’t see how this law preserves White supremacy, or aims to.

By: r.friedman

r.friedman — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 02:37:31 +0000

This 1913 law against marrying “out-of-state residents if their marriage ‘would be void’ in their home state” is of the right era and tone to be in support of anti-miscegenation laws. Can anybody put some history on this?

By: Wave Maker

Wave Maker — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 02:37:21 +0000

Interesting sidelight:

” County clerks around the state were told to enforce this provision rigorously.”

Clerks who administrer the marriage license law are municipal clerks — in MOST of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts, clerks are elected, not appointed. They can’t be “told” by anyone of a higher authority to do anything.

Some of the clerks ignored the out-of-state prohibition, and then the state’s Attorney General (sotto voce running for governor already) ” sent five-page letters to the offending municipalities urging them to comply with the 1913 statute. Though not a classic “cease and desist” order, Reilly’s letter warns each community to “advise your clerk’s office to cease and desist from such actions” to avoid criminal penalties of up to $500 and a year in jail.” Story here.

Apparently, no clerk was willing to defy Reilly.