Legislators' strategy was a leap of faith

Last night, Representative Ruth B. Balser, passionate supporter of same-sex marriage, voted for a constitutional amendment banning it.

Twice.

And she was not alone. More than 30 like-minded fellow legislators did the same, casting yea votes for an amendment, proposed by House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini, that would ban gay marriage and establish civil unions.

Last night, political strategy, helped along by special numeric codes on 50 beepers bought especially for the cause, temporarily trumped passionate belief on Beacon Hill. Balser voted for an amendment she abhorred in the hope of blocking other, more Draconian ones. She and her colleagues took a chance that, having blocked other amendments by voting twice for the Finneran-Travaglini amendment, they could defeat it on a third vote, thereby killing it for the year.

"Right now, I am trying to get rid of the worst of the worst amendments," she said, after her first vote in favor of the amendment. "When we get rid of those, we will work on defeating this amendment."

At the last Constitutional Convention, in February, she would not be moved. Gay-rights activists had asked Balser and other same-sex marriage supporters to make a similar strategic vote. But Balser, like some other legislators who support gay marriage, said no. The Newton Democrat was absolutely opposed to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The discrimination she saw in it went against her upbringing, against her youth in the civil rights movement, against her career as a psychologist and legislator, she said.

"I'm Jewish, I was born in 1948, and every Jewish baby that was born was a victory over the worst oppression that we ever saw, and my parents told me it was my job to make sure that not only our people, but that no people, be the objects of bigotry," she said. "My entire life has been shaped by that goal."

And so, each of the three times an amendment came up for a vote in that session, she voted against it.

"Ruth voted no [in February] because, like many of our legislative supporters, she so strongly opposed these antigay ballot questions that she couldn't abide the idea of ever voting for one, even as a procedural vote," said Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. "Like many other legislators, she struggled with this. Every supportive legislator of ours was deeply torn about what to do on this vote, and some were in tears, because they so did not want to vote for something they found so discriminatory."

At the last convention, the strategy was hastily formed, Isaacson said. This time, gay-marriage proponents left nothing to chance. They spent a month winning sympathetic legislators over to the strategy. Yesterday morning, after numerous meetings, friendly legislators were supplied with specially bought beepers. In the chamber, special numeric codes instructed them on how to vote, and when to gather for planning sessions.

Not all of the legislators who favor gay marriage were on board, however. Some told Isaacson they couldn't support the amendment, however briefly, as a matter of conscience. Others said they would not be able to explain the apparent inconsistency in their votes to constituents.

Balser said she was confident her supporters would understand.

Still, some legislators struggled mightily, Isaacson said. As she did herself. "It has been very hard for us, lobbying for this," Isaacson said. "It has been so painful for so many good, decent legislators struggling to figure out what to do. They want to do right by us; they want to help us. But as a strategy we needed to ask them to do this. We knew this strategy was our best and only chance of winning, but it's very hard to look in the eyes of a legislator who you know is 1000 percent supportive and ask them to do something they find so painful."

But while the gay marriage supporters held together on the first and second votes, speeding the amendment through the chamber, their no votes when the amendment came up a third time were not enough to kill it. Republicans who had previously opposed the amendment voted to keep it alive.