Thursday, July 17, 2008

House Voting Soon on Repeal of 1913 Law

From Massachusetts Family Institute:

Call Your Representative NOW

Following yesterday’s vote in the Senate, the Massachusetts House of Representatives is expected to take up soon the bill that would repeal the so-called “1913” law and start exporting same-sex “marriage” from the Bay State to states across the nation. This repeal would create havoc with the long-standing tradition of respecting the right of other states to define marriage as they choose. The extremely liberal state Senate voted by voice vote to repeal this important law, so the House holds our last chance to stop the bill.

Click Link At Bottom

We cannot emphasize how important it is to have your voice heard by your legislators on this bill. We have learned that House Speaker DiMasi is getting pressure to postpone the vote from legislators who do not want to vote on this matter before the November election. They know this issue will not play well in their districts. Blocking this bill in the House until after the election would give us ample time to educate legislators on the need for the 1913 law and the real, non-racist history of it.

Remember, even if your legislator has cast pro-marriage votes in the past, they still need to hear from you on this issue. Some of our pro-family Senators said they did not hear from their constituents prior to the vote.

Click Link At Bottom

With a vote pending as soon as this afternoon, please take a moment to CALL your state Representative and ask him or her to do whatever they can to block the repeal of the 1913 law. Explain to them this law is necessary to protect states’ rights and that the argument that this law is a racist relic is unfounded. You can find further documentation to back up your arguments by visiting You can also email your legislator by CLICKING HERE.

Some background about the so-called “1913 law”:

Contrary to the tired charges of racism being promoted by pro-homosexual legislators against those supporting this law, the 1913 law was passed by the Massachusetts Legislature to create a set of uniform marriage laws from state to state and was in reaction to a recommendation by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State laws, a group comprised of judges, professors, lawyers and scholars. Massachusetts had already become the second state to lift its ban on interracial marriages in 1843, a full 70 years before the passage of the 1913 law.
While some states may have used the uniform state laws to prevent interracial marriage, that was simply not the case in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court noted in their ruling upholding the law that “it is not the province of [the SJC] to dictate to other States how to construe their own specific statutes and public policy when confronted with the issue whether to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in Massachusetts.” The court also found that there was no credible evidence that the goal of the 1913 law was to ban interracial marriage.
Even in the SJC’s Goodridge ruling that opened the door for same-sex “marriage,” the majority cited the 1913 law to respond to the claim that legalizing same-sex “marriage” would allow persons in other states to use Massachusetts’ marriages to try to force recognition of a marriage that is illegal in their own state.

The pressure is on from both sides, but we have the truth as our advantage. MFI and Kris Mineau have failed to convince the public that equality is wrong, and with that in mind many people ARE calling their representatives and reminding them how they should vote. Please make every effort to tell your friends and family about this important and historic vote.

As a side note, the 1913 law was originally enacted by other bigots who wanted to keep black people from getting married in Massachusetts if their own state would not recognize the union. Can someone tell me again how the struggle for black equality and ours are not similar when we have the same law being used against us? For more on this issue visit MassMarrier's article.

No comments: