2008 Woodie Awards
Massachusetts law places national limits on same-sex marriage
By: Michelle Oyola
Issue date: 4/13/06 Section: News
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Sophomore photography major Quinn Gardner, Webster Pride president, doesn't care what it's called. All she wants is to have the same rights that come with heterosexual marriages.
"I want to visit my partner in the hospital if she's dying," Gardner said.
Proponents of same-sex marriage suffered one more setback this month. Same-sex couples from states that do not allow gay marriage cannot marry in Massachusetts. In addition, "every marriage contracted in this commonwealth in violation hereof shall be null and void," reads the 1913 law.
In short, if a same-sex couple previously went to Massachusetts to get married, that marriage is no longer valid (if the couple's home state had policies against same-sex marriage).
Same-sex marriage is not allowed in Missouri. Missouri was the first state to put in a Constitutional amendment defining that marriage "shall exist only between a man and a woman." This amendment was passed in August 2005.
Steve Houldsworth, Webster Pride adviser, said Massachusetts is using a discriminatory law in order to punish gay and lesbian people. The 1913 law was originally created when Massachusetts was allowing interracial marriages and other states were not. The law is now being applied to same-sex couples. Houldsworth said anyone who believes that stopping interracial marriages is wrong should also believe this decision is a bad one.
Gardner said the Webster Pride organization doesn't have an official stand on the same-sex marriage issue. However, all members who attended a meeting April 5 were in support of same sex marriage. Webster Pride has about 75 members. Both Webster Pride and Students for Gender Equality combined have more than 100 members, Gardner said. She pointed out that these members are only a very small fraction of the Webster University LGBT community.
While Houldsworth believes the decision is unethical, Gardner said the law makes sense even though she doesn't agree with it, because Massachusetts can't ignore other states' rights. If it were up to Gardner, the government would not be involved in the issue of marriage at all, she said. However, since the government is involved in marriage, she believes the LGBT community should be allowed equality afforded to heterosexual couples. She added that she doesn't care what they call it - either marriage or a civil union.
"I want to visit my partner in the hospital if she's dying," Gardner said.
Proponents of same-sex marriage suffered one more setback this month. Same-sex couples from states that do not allow gay marriage cannot marry in Massachusetts. In addition, "every marriage contracted in this commonwealth in violation hereof shall be null and void," reads the 1913 law.
In short, if a same-sex couple previously went to Massachusetts to get married, that marriage is no longer valid (if the couple's home state had policies against same-sex marriage).
Same-sex marriage is not allowed in Missouri. Missouri was the first state to put in a Constitutional amendment defining that marriage "shall exist only between a man and a woman." This amendment was passed in August 2005.
Steve Houldsworth, Webster Pride adviser, said Massachusetts is using a discriminatory law in order to punish gay and lesbian people. The 1913 law was originally created when Massachusetts was allowing interracial marriages and other states were not. The law is now being applied to same-sex couples. Houldsworth said anyone who believes that stopping interracial marriages is wrong should also believe this decision is a bad one.
Gardner said the Webster Pride organization doesn't have an official stand on the same-sex marriage issue. However, all members who attended a meeting April 5 were in support of same sex marriage. Webster Pride has about 75 members. Both Webster Pride and Students for Gender Equality combined have more than 100 members, Gardner said. She pointed out that these members are only a very small fraction of the Webster University LGBT community.
While Houldsworth believes the decision is unethical, Gardner said the law makes sense even though she doesn't agree with it, because Massachusetts can't ignore other states' rights. If it were up to Gardner, the government would not be involved in the issue of marriage at all, she said. However, since the government is involved in marriage, she believes the LGBT community should be allowed equality afforded to heterosexual couples. She added that she doesn't care what they call it - either marriage or a civil union.