Monday, April 02, 2007

Hey, Deval, While You're at It

why don't you just stop enforcing 1913? You're the Governor and thus in charge of the executive office. Let's just not pay any attention to that 1913 boogeyman, just like we ignore the whole law that says men have to bring guns to church on Sunday. You have the power to tell cities and towns to stop bugging the people asking for wedding marriages, so let's do it. Then, let's get 1913 off the books once and for all.

Update:

Here's some key points in the Globe, sadly buried.

Each of the 26 couples at issue was married just after May 17, 2004, the date gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts. All obtained marriage licenses in one of four communities -- Provincetown, Worcester, Springfield, and Somerville -- where clerks defied Romney's order not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state gay couples.

Romney obtained those marriage records from the clerks and stopped the state from processing them, which meant the state had no record of the marriages. The marriages were recorded at the local level, however.

Deval's made a very strong statement in favor of equality, so kudos to him. Now, it's time to go all the way... and ask clerks in towns and cities to stop harassing out of state same-sex couples. If they want to get married in Massachusetts, let's welcome them to it.

4 comments:

Mass Marrier said...

I'd like some legislative leadership here, by the governor, house speaker and senate president. They all say they are for equality and civil rights. I've called for the repeal of these laws for a year and more. It shouldn't take long to accomplish...and I bet it would feel real good.

I've also asked my senator and rep to repeal them. Supposed they have to at least ask. This one is simple. Voters need to make some noise.

Anonymous said...

It's a lot easier to ignore a law when there isn't a SJC decision - of recent vintage - saying it must be enforced.

Repeal is the way to go, and why that hasn't been pushed is beyond me.

Anonymous said...

Why do you need a Court decision? Saying a law must be enforced is a little redundant. All laws are supposed to be enforced, that's why they're laws, so what if the SJC overstepped its bounds and issued an unnecesary decision that they have no authority to enforce on a case that had no standing or merit? Let's be consistent for once. We need to be out in the streets demanding the enforcement of all arcane laws, not just ones that get a lot of PR or ones bigots like especially. Mandatory Guns in Church--it's all part of the sacred "process."

We don't want to be accused of being cafeteria process worshippers who only think the process is important when it's bigoted. We'll look bad.

Ryan Adams said...

We don't enforce lots of laws. One of the interesting things about Government is that law enforcement officials are given great deference in enforcement. It's why most of us don't get speeding tickets everyday. Otherwise, we'd be locking people up because they forgot to bring their guns to church on Sunday.

About Ryan's Take