Advertisement

Gays Seek Wider Marital Rights

Share
From Associated Press

Massachusetts’ highest court, which legalized gay marriage in the state, has agreed to hear a challenge to the 1913 law being used to bar out-of-state gay couples from getting married in the state.

The law denies out-of-state couples the right to marry if it would be illegal in their home state.

The Supreme Judicial Court agreed in late January to hear the case, but no public announcement was made. Because of an earlier ruling by the court, Massachusetts last year became the only state that allows gay couples to marry.

Advertisement

Oral arguments on the 1913 law are tentatively scheduled for September, said Joan Kenney, a spokeswoman for the court.

“We’re optimistic about our chances because the court has already decided the commonwealth can’t deny marriage rights to gays and lesbians,” said attorney Michele Granda, who is representing eight couples challenging the law.

A spokesman for Atty. Gen. Thomas Reilly, whose office will defend the law before the court, declined to comment Wednesday.

The court ruled 4-3 in November 2003 that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional and gave lawmakers 180 days to come up with a solution that would allow gay couples to wed. The first weddings took place in May.

State officials, however, used the 1913 law to stop nonresident couples from marrying in the state.

The eight out-of-state gay couples sued, and a Superior Court judge ruled in August that the law was not discriminatory. Clerks in several communities also sued, saying they were being forced to apply a discriminatory law.

Advertisement

The plaintiffs appealed, and the Supreme Judicial Court agreed late last month to hear the case. The clerks have been merged with the case pending before the court. The direct review by the Supreme Judicial Court bypasses the usual review by the state Appeals Court.

Critics charge the 1913 law was written to block interracial marriages, but in its ruling the Superior Court said the state had presented credible evidence that the law was passed to prevent abuse of divorce laws.

Advertisement