Reilly Defends Enforcement of 1913 Law for Gay Marriages
       Filing a brief in the case challenging the state’s antiquated law that bans out-of-state gay couples from marrying here, Attorney General Thomas Reilly denied claims that the law is being selectively enforced, and defended the state’s right to write and enforce unique laws. The attorney general’s brief, written by First Attorney General Peter Sacks, says city and town clerks’ enforcement of the law, as directed by the state is “evenhanded, treating same-sex and opposite-sex couples exactly alike.”
In the case Cote-Whitacre vs. Department of Public Health, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders are looking to repeal the so-called Reversed Evasion Statute, arguing that the law is discriminatory, particularly because before gay marriage was legalized on May 17, 2004 clerks were never asked about marriage laws in the couples’ home states. The 1913 law nullifies any marriage that would be considered void in the couple’s home state.
       Four other states – Vermont, New Hampshire, Illinois, and Wisconsin – have similar reversed evasion laws. Reilly argues that other states have the ability to enforce their own marriage laws, such as requiring a waiting period after a divorce, or a minimum age requirement to marry without parental consent.
       “Each state should be able to decide its own marriage laws for its citizens,” Stephanie Lovell, Reilly’s first assistant, told reporters Friday. “This law has been enforced evenhandedly and treats opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples alike depending on whether their state allows them to be married in certain circumstances.”
       The brief further disputes the plaintiff’s claim that Gov. Mitt Romney’s objection to gay marriage is the motivation behind the state’s execution of the law. Reilly, a Democratic candidate for governor in 2006, is personally opposed to gay marriage, but is not supportive to taking away gay couples’ rights extended to them after the state’s high court legalized the unions, his spokesman David Guarino said. Arguments before the Supreme Judicial Court are likely in October, although no date has been set.