\The political game of chicken over gay marriage in Massachusetts appears to be over—and Gov. Mitt Romney blinked. The aisle is being adorned with good intentions for weddings to commence on May 17 across the Bay State.
The Republican Governor, an active opponent of gay marriage that some have ascribed to national political ambitions, had sought authority from the legislature to intervene in court to stop the issuing of marriage licenses when the Attorney General declined to do so. The legislature didn't even make a pretense of considering the request.
Next Romney asserted that town officials must follow the letter of the law in issuing marriage licenses, particularly with regard to an archaic law passed in 1913 to limit interracial marriage. It said that couples prohibited from marrying under the laws of their home state could not get married in Massachusetts.
He even went so far as to send letters to all of the states inquiring of the legal status of same-sex marriage. And he told clerks they might be punished if they didn't actively enforce the laws of those other states.
But town clerks and justices of the peace balked at the idea. They pointed out that the marriage license was a formal legal document that applicants swore was true. Those local officials had never verified such statementsin the past and they weren't about to take on the responsibility now.
In addition, they feared opening themselves up to liability and charges of discrimination if they only asked those questions of same-sex couples. 'It comes down to discrimination,' Springfield city clerk Bill Metzger told the Boston Globe. 'It doesn't matter how one feels about same-sex marriages. It's a matter of the law.'
Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino said he might ignore the Governor's directive. So did clerks across the state.
Faced with such open rebellion, Romney was forced to backtrack. 'What this means is it is not up to us to be the police for this whole particular process,' said Linda Hutchenrider, president of the Massachusetts Town Clerks Association. 'It will be up to couples to make honest statements.'
Meanwhile, openly gay state senator Jarrett Barrios was among those pushing repeal of the 1913 law.
The Globe wrote in an editorial: 'Now that the Supreme Judicial Court has declared discrimination against gay couples who want to marry unconstitutional, it is hard to see the point of enforcing the discriminatory laws of other states. Massachusetts should be proud of leading the nation in recognizing same-sex marriages, not clinging to moribund statutes to place obstacles in their way'
Fenway Community Health and other medical providers have been swamped with requests for blood tests that are required of all couples seeking a marriage license.
The city of Cambridge is planning a celebration with wedding cake and music beginning at 11 p.m. May 16 and opening the clerk's office at the stroke of midnight to issue the first licenses. 'This isn't about us being first, this is about equality and equity,' claimed Mayor Michael A. Sullivan.
However, most clerks' offices across the state will open at their usual time, or perhaps a little early to better serve the anticipated rush. And courts are prepared to issue a standard waiver of the three-day waiting period after a license is issued before a couple can marry.
Three of the seven couples involved in the landmark Goodridge case that found marriage discrimination to be unconstitutional will be the first to receive their licenses at city hall in Boston. Among them will be Julie and Hillary Goodridge.
'This is another barrier being broken down, we'll let TV cameras in to record this historic moment,' Mayor Menino said.
In New Jersey May 6, Lambda Legal filed an appeal to that state's Supreme Court seeking marriage equality for same-sex couples.
On May 7, Lambda and the Northwest Women's Law Center filed a motion for summary judgment on a gay marriage case in Washington state.
