Viva Las Vegas
Sunday August 3, 2008
"Gay Las Vegas."
That's the phrase that some right-wing commentators have begun to use in reference to Massachusetts, now that the state government has made the wise and sensible decision to allow out-of-state couples to marry in the state without establishing residency. (Governor Patrick signed the bill on Thursday, his 52nd birthday, describing it as "a great birthday present.")
The new legislation, which took effect immediately, struck down a 1913 law intended to prevent interracial marriages by out-of-state couples living in states that prohibited same. Consider: The state that was unwilling to function as a "Las Vegas" for interracial couples in 1913 is at least willing to be a "Las Vegas" for same-sex couples in 2008. That's progress.
Of course, if legislators in other states had not pandered to racism in 1913, there would have been no call for Massachusetts to function as a "Las Vegas" then. And if legislators in other states were not pandering to homophobia today, there would be no need for it to function as a "Las Vegas" now. It would be nice if same-sex couples could get married in their home states, instead of having to hunt around for a state that isn't run by people who think or pretend to think that God has commanded them to scrutinize their constituents' love lives.
But since we're not quite there yet, gay-friendly states may as well rake in all that wedding-related tourism revenue. Massachusetts doesn't really need the money--other states, such as my own home state of Mississippi, could really be transformed by the estimated $700 million in additional revenue expected to pour in as a result of all these new marriages had their leaders been smart enough to be the first on the scene. Then again, this isn't the first time the people of Mississippi and like-minded states have allowed bigots to sabotage their economic interests--and if history is any guide, it won't be the last.
Good for Massachusetts. And good for California, if its citizens are intelligent enough to do the right thing in November and reject that ridiculous anti-marriage referendum. Marriage is now a national option for same-sex couples; the only question now is how long conservative states will continue to ignore their constitutional obligation to recognize these out-of-state marriages. Probably for quite some time, I'd wager, since there's no indication that the U.S. Supreme Court is in any hurry to enforce Article IV on this matter--but at least some states, such as New York, aren't waiting.
Related: Four Reasons to Support Same-Sex Marriage
That's the phrase that some right-wing commentators have begun to use in reference to Massachusetts, now that the state government has made the wise and sensible decision to allow out-of-state couples to marry in the state without establishing residency. (Governor Patrick signed the bill on Thursday, his 52nd birthday, describing it as "a great birthday present.")
The new legislation, which took effect immediately, struck down a 1913 law intended to prevent interracial marriages by out-of-state couples living in states that prohibited same. Consider: The state that was unwilling to function as a "Las Vegas" for interracial couples in 1913 is at least willing to be a "Las Vegas" for same-sex couples in 2008. That's progress.
Of course, if legislators in other states had not pandered to racism in 1913, there would have been no call for Massachusetts to function as a "Las Vegas" then. And if legislators in other states were not pandering to homophobia today, there would be no need for it to function as a "Las Vegas" now. It would be nice if same-sex couples could get married in their home states, instead of having to hunt around for a state that isn't run by people who think or pretend to think that God has commanded them to scrutinize their constituents' love lives.
But since we're not quite there yet, gay-friendly states may as well rake in all that wedding-related tourism revenue. Massachusetts doesn't really need the money--other states, such as my own home state of Mississippi, could really be transformed by the estimated $700 million in additional revenue expected to pour in as a result of all these new marriages had their leaders been smart enough to be the first on the scene. Then again, this isn't the first time the people of Mississippi and like-minded states have allowed bigots to sabotage their economic interests--and if history is any guide, it won't be the last.
Good for Massachusetts. And good for California, if its citizens are intelligent enough to do the right thing in November and reject that ridiculous anti-marriage referendum. Marriage is now a national option for same-sex couples; the only question now is how long conservative states will continue to ignore their constitutional obligation to recognize these out-of-state marriages. Probably for quite some time, I'd wager, since there's no indication that the U.S. Supreme Court is in any hurry to enforce Article IV on this matter--but at least some states, such as New York, aren't waiting.
Related: Four Reasons to Support Same-Sex Marriage
Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment