Gay rights groups slam Reilly for suggesting gay marriage alternative
BOSTON -- Gay rights advocates Friday denounced Attorney General Tom Reilly's reaction to the state high court's gay marriage decision, arguing that it was shameful for the state's chief law enforcement officer to promote a "separate-but-equal" system.
"The notion that you can separate somehow these benefits, protections and obligations of marriage from the status of marriage itself is just unbelievable, I think," said Gary Buseck, executive director of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, which represented the plaintiffs in the landmark case. "Frankly, I think he reads it in a way that is completely preposterous."
Reilly, who held his first press conference since the Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision, denied that he was calling for a separate-but-equal statute for gay couples, but said he thought the ruling left the Legislature room to approve something other than gay marriage as long as it provided equal benefits and protections.
"That's the real focus of the decision," Reilly said. "You can call it whatever you want."
Reilly said the decision was unclear in its instruction to the Legislature, which was given 180 days to act as it may "deem appropriate" in light of the ruling, and expressed unease about the fact that the court was so narrowly split on the 4-3 decision.
This, too, met with ire from gay rights advocates.
"I think that's really odd, because our president sits in the White House because of a 5-4 decision from the U.S. Supreme Court," Buseck said. "It really doesn't matter."
Reilly's office represented the state Department of Public Health in the lawsuit, filed by seven gay couples who were denied marriage licenses by their local town or city clerk's offices.
During the arguments, his office argued that there was a reasonable basis for the state to limit marriage to heterosexual couples as a way to promote the goal of procreation. The state also argued that it was the Legislature, and not the courts, who should decide whether to change such a fundamental social policy.
Arline Isaacson of the Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus said this argument ignored the central role that courts have always played in protecting constitutional rights.
"I kept thinking, thank heavens he wasn't the attorney general when Brown vs the Board of Education was decided. Thank heavens he wasn't attorney general when the anti-miscegenation laws were overturned," Isaacson said. "Because he would say, 'Oh no, the courts can't decide that. It should go to the Legislature."'
Despite the anger from gay rights groups, Reilly said he embraced the decision and its espousal of fairness for gay couples.
"This is a wonderful opportunity not only for the Legislature but for our state to show the entire country that we can be fair to people and I hope that we will seize the moment," Reilly said. "I hope that over the next few months we'll be able to come up with a law that will ensure that same-sex couples have the same benefits, protections, and obligations as other couples."
In Vermont, this lead to the creation of civil unions, which is a parallel system granting couples many of the benefits of marriage.
