Allegedly killed by U.S. forces, he seems to have two names.
ROMNEY HAS A POINT: A while back, I referred to an obscure 1913 Masscahusetts law, designed to prevent inter-racial couples using Massachusetts to leverage marriage rights in their home states. Mitt Romney wants to deploy that statute today to prevent out-of-state gay couples from doing the same thing as their multi-racial forebears once tried to do. I’m no fan of the statute (or of Romney), but it seems to me that the governor is right. It’s the law. And it should be enforced or repealed – not ignored or violated. Marriage rights advocates will be making a serious error if they try and use Massachusetts to coerce other states into recognition. Gay couples from states which specifically ban marriage rights for gays should therefore be prevented from marrying in Massachusetts: that’s the deal of federalism. If, however, the couples come from states that have not banned such marriages, and whose attorneys-general have said they will recognize such marriages, then I see no reason to prevent them. But the law should also be applied to those heterosexual couples who fall under its purview. As blogger John Aravosis points out,
Massachusetts permits an 18 year old to get married, no questions asked. Nebraska and Mississippi, however, require that same 18 year old to have a notarized consent form from their parent before conducting the marriage. If the Massachusetts clerks weren’t presented with those consent forms, then the out-of-state heterosexuals weren’t legally married (or so it would seem). There are lots of other requirements that vary by each state. If any of those were not met when an out of stater got married in Massachusetts, their marriage could be invalid.
Romney should enforce the law, acknowledge that it was designed to stop inter-racial marriages, and apply it equally to straights and gays today. My fundamental belief is that the right to marry is unalienable. But it was for inter-racial couples in 1913 as well – and they were still denied it for decades. Social change takes time and persuasion. Federalism requires and prudence dictates that we restrict marriage rights to those few states that enact them or recognize them elsewhere. Pushing for a national decision right now would be unwise and foolhardy. We have won an amazing victory. Let’s not throw it away with extremism.
The Dish 