Not long after same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, Governor Mitt Romney trotted out an "obscure" state law from 1913 and used it to deny out-of-state couples the opportunity to seek a marriage license in MA. This law, which had originally been used to prevent interracial couples from marrying, had remained on the books, though it had been "decades" since being enforced. Perhaps to enhance his red credentials in a blue state for a presidential bid, Romney, through his actions, worked hard to make sure that he clearly stated that he did not support same-sex marriage and would not facilitiate an inflow of gay, out-of-state brides & grooms. As such, the state marriage application form "was changed to include a new question asking where the couple planned to reside" (HRC).
For a basic summary of what has transpired around this law, check out HRC's well-informed overview.
The beauty of our democracy and legal system allows for challenges to circumstances like this and, today, the Massachusetts Supreme Court will hear two cases which challenge this law and have the potential not only to shape what happens for gay marriage in Massachusetts, but also sets a potential precedent for gay marriage to be recognized across state lines for states who have not yet accepted same sex marriage.
For an informative overview on this, check out Anthony Brooks' account, which ran this morning on Morning Edition on NPR.
Then, when you need a little break, check out another one of my favorite "news" sources -- The Onion -- for a recent Onion Radio News report, Kentucky Legislature Bans Gay Pet Weddings.