Those Wedding Bell Blues

First it was black jack tables that were going to balance the state budget. Governor, Deval Patrick's proposal for four regional casinos, spread around Massachusetts, would generate so much revenue to the state, that he even pencilled in some anticipated income for fiscal 2009. Now we find that there is an economic benefit to be derived from the proposed repeal of the 1913 state law which has prevented same-sex marriages marriages between residents of other states. The law basically says that a couple who may not legally marry in their home state, may not marry in Massachusetts. By repealing the law, we now find, thanks to information developed by the Williams Institute at UCLA, that the state can expect $111 million into its economy over the next three years as couples come to Massachusetts and spend big on wedding cakes, marriage licenses and food and lodging. While the Massachusetts study is not up on the Institute's web site as of yet, A similar studies on several other states, provide statistical context. Details of the Massachusetts study released by the Massachusetts Office of Housing and Economic Development, are cited in today's Globe. Perhaps we might see a string of Las-Vegas style wedding chapels spring up along rte 1A, near the airport, to accommodate the more budget-minded.

State Senator, Diane Wilkerson, (D-Roxbury), quoted on Newsweek. com maintains that another reason for repealing the law is that it is a throwback to a century-ago prohibition against interracial marriage. She called the law "evil. This is one of the most pernicious statutes on our books. This bill puts the final nail in the coffin of those dark days." But according to the San Francisco Chronicle:

"The genesis of the law remains murky. It was approved at a time when many states barred interracial marriages, although supporters say there's no evidence it was racially motivated in Massachusetts, which began allowing interracial marriages in 1843.

There's no record of the legislative debate on the bill, which raced through the Massachusetts Legislature in three weeks and was quickly signed into law.

It appeared to come out of a nationwide effort to eliminate conflicts among the country's patchwork of laws. But it also came during a time of racial tension, including a scandal over black heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson's marriage to Lucille Cameron, who was white."

It is also interesting to note that Wilkerson, who lead the charge in the senate to repeal this law on moral grounds, has had no small amount of trouble in recognizing her own moral obligations when it comes to taxes and campaign spending.

Advocates for gay marriage maintain that same sex weddings have now become an accepted part of the State's culture. This would certainly appear to be the case in the Massachusetts Senate, but ignores the concerns of many citizens, including the 170,000 or so that petitioned the General Court to put the question to the people through a ballot referendum.

In the same Globe article, Cardinal Sean O'Malley cites constitutional, cultural and religious reasons for his opposition to the repeal of the law. Joining the state's other three Catholic Bishops, "They said eliminating the law would infringe on the on the rights of states to set their own marriage laws, and they emphasized their commitment to the traditional definition of marriage."

The House is expected to take up the repeal before the July 31st adjournment. If passed, the bill would then go to the Governor for his signature which he has indicated he will affix to the bill. Some may see this as a "victory", but many in Massachusetts, and across the country, see it as further evidence that Massachusetts is losing touch with the traditional values as we export our wrong-headed policies to other states.