By John Jalsevac

BOSTON, Massachusetts, July 27, 2007 ( – The Registrar of Vital Records in Massachusetts has instructed city and town clerks to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals from New Mexico who come to Massachusetts to “marry,” reports AP.

Shortly after same-sex “marriage” was introduced into Massachusetts via the court system in 2004, governor Mitt Romney had banned homosexual out-of-staters from being able to obtain a Massachusetts marriage license, basing his decision on a 1913 law that forbade the state from issuing licenses to those who would be prohibited from marrying in their home state. 

The highest Massachusetts court, however, ruled in March 2006 that homosexual couples from other states were forbidden to “marry” in Massachusetts only if their home state explicitly banned same-sex “marriage.”

Although several attempts have been made in the past to ban same-sex “marriage” in New Mexico, those attempts have failed, and currently there is no explicit ban on same-sex “marriage” in the state.

Currently homosexual couples from Rhode Island are also permitted to “marry” in Massachusetts.

This newest development in Massachusetts confirms what many in the pro-marriage movement have been warning of since the specter of same-sex “marriage” first made its appearance in public discourse – that is, same-sex “marriage,” once permitted in one locality, will not remain an isolated phenomenon, but will instead be used as leverage to force the issue in other jurisdictions.  

Same-sex “marriages” obtained in Canada have been used by foreign homosexual activists as a means of putting pressure on their own countries to legalize same-sex “marriage.” At the same time, pressure is building up within the United States, as was seen in New York when a New York court ruled that over 170 same-sex “marriages” obtained by New York residents in Massachusetts prior to New York’s same-sex “marriage” ban must be recognized by the state, even though same-sex “marriage” was never legal in the state. 


Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.