Groups hold out for public furor before acting

Opponents of gay marriage said yesterday they are counting on a backlash to the legalization of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts to help them marshal public support, as they fight to get the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling overturned.

Groups that oppose gay marriage held only scattered protests during the first 24 hours that gay couples could obtain marriage licenses, with leaders saying they wished to avoid ugly conflicts and to show respect for the rule of law. But they made clear that they would try to change the law any way they can -- through the courts, the Legislature, and this fall's campaigns.

"The horse is out of the gate, but we're in this thing as well, and this steeplechase has a lot of hurdles ahead of it," said Kristian M. Mineau, acting president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, a leading antigay-marriage group. "This is going to gain national prominence, and I think that helps us. People will wake up around the nation."

Lobbyists for some groups that oppose gay marriage made the rounds at the State House yesterday, encouraging lawmakers to continue to stand up against gay marriage. Their most immediate agenda item was asking House and Senate members to oppose a proposal that would make it far easier for out-of-state gay couples to wed in Massachusetts.

Other groups said they are pursuing a federal court challenge to the SJC's gay-marriage ruling, raising money to elect state lawmakers who oppose gay marriage, and pushing efforts to oust the SJC justices whose votes brought gay marriages to Massachusetts.

Leaders of the Article 8 Alliance, an organization trying to persuade the Legislature to remake the state's highest court, held a rally on City Hall Plaza in Boston just a few feet from where couples lined up to apply for marriage licenses. The group said it was protesting "marriage destruction day" and demanded that the four justices who signed on to the legalization of gay marriages be removed.

The State House sponsor of that bid, Representative Emile J. Goguen, said he would seek to have his "bill of address" released by the House Rules Committee as soon as this week. He predicted that his colleagues would not block consideration of the measure in the face of the growing attention the issue is receiving across the nation.

"When it comes to the floor, they'll vote for it," said Goguen, a Fitchburg Democrat. "I want a debate on it. I want to separate the men and the boys."

Gay-rights activists argued that public opinion will swing in their favor once residents see that gay marriages affect only those who are entering into them.

"It's going to shift things, since we've always suffered from our invisibility," said Josh Friedes, advocacy director of the Freedom to Marry Coalition of Massachusetts. "People are not going to take rights away from people that they know and love, that are their neighbors."

Both sides are preparing for a fight in the 2005-2006 legislative session, when a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and establish gay civil unions is scheduled to come up for a vote. If it passes, it would go to voters in November 2006.

Mineau, of the family institute, said he is still hoping for a favorable ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in a case claiming that the SJC went beyond its legal authority in the gay-marriage ruling. The US Supreme Court refused last week to order a halt to gay marriages based on that case, but arguments are scheduled at the appeals court June 7.

Meanwhile, The Heritage Alliance is helping about 20 state legislative candidates raise money for campaigns against incumbents who have voted in favor of gay marriages or civil unions. The alliance is also encouraging citizens to file complaints against Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall with the state Commission on Judicial Conduct.

The alliance's president, Michael Carl, is accusing Marshall of violating the state code of judicial conduct by speaking in favor of gay rights at a 1999 meeting of the Massachusetts Lesbian & Gay Bar Association but still participating in the case that led to the gay-marriage ruling. Joan Kenney, an SJC spokeswoman, said the allegation has no merit, because Marshall speaks at many bar organization meetings and had no reason to recuse herself from the case.