While foes rally, gay marriage camp strategizes
Says amendment is a Trojan horse
As 2,000 gay-marriage opponents rallied on Boston Common yesterday, supporters of same-sex unions charged that a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual institution would be a "Trojan horse" that would serve to block civil unions and domestic partner benefits for gay couples.
The eleventh-hour strategy, designed to appeal to lawmakers who oppose gay marriage but favor civil unions, surfaced as the Legislature prepares to cast a historic vote this week on the proposed constitutional amendment. The vote could take place as soon as Wednesday, and lawmakers interviewed yesterday said the 199-member Legislature remains deeply divided, with perhaps 10 percent still undecided.
"It's safe to say a significant number of undecideds could make it swing either way," said Democratic Representative Michael E. Festa, who was among the lawmakers polling colleagues over the weekend.
Republican Representative Vinny M. deMacedo, a gay-marriage opponent who attended yesterday's rally, agreed, saying, "I think it's very fluid right now. It's a very difficult issue, but I think we will prevail ultimately."
Yesterday's rally was the first of many gatherings favoring and opposing gay marriage expected in and around the State House this week, as national groups on both sides of the issue focus their lobbying on Massachusetts.
Sponsored by the national grass-roots group Your Catholic Voice, the rally was the largest so far in support of the amendment banning gay marriage. It featured several heavyweights in the movement, including Boston Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley, Concerned Women for America president Sandy Rios, former Boston mayor Raymond L. Flynn, and former Massachusetts House speaker and attorney general Robert Quinn.
"The eyes of the nation are on you today," Rios told the crowd. "For almighty God's sake, let the people vote."
At that, the crowd erupted into a chant of "Let the people vote!" -- a direct message to state lawmakers who must ratify an amendment twice for it to appear on the statewide ballot in November 2006.
Backers of the amendment said they will repeat that message often this week. They aim to push lawmakers to vote for the proposed amendment -- even if they disapprove of it personally -- so the public can ultimately decide the matter at the ballot box.
Meanwhile yesterday, about 350 supporters of gay marriage took up a position across Tremont Street to stage a counter-rally, waving rainbow flags, crying out "Let freedom ring!" and singing the national anthem. Several in the crowd identified themselves as Catholics, and expressed anger that O'Malley has been a vocal supporter of the proposed constitutional amendment.
Richard Orareo, a Catholic, held a sign that read, "O'Malley, We Don't Trust You," and said, "Why didn't the Catholic Church do a million-dollar mailing on child abuse?" a reference to the recent clergy sexual abuse crisis.
The constitutional amendment vote is looming just days after the Supreme Judicial Court issued an advisory opinion declaring that a proposed civil union statute amounted to "an unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples." The opinion last Wednesday reaffirmed the SJC's historic Nov. 18 ruling that declared gay marriage is constitutional.
The opinion took away the middle ground favored by many lawmakers, who have said they would be willing to allow civil unions for gays but not full-fledged marriage. Now, they will be faced with a proposed amendment that directly contradicts the court's rulings that back gay marriage.
The proposed constitutional amendment states that "It being the public policy of this Commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and the best interest of children, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts. Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent."
Several lawmakers, fearful that the last four words could block later efforts to create Vermont-style civil unions, have told the amendment's prime sponsor, Representative Philip Travis of Rehoboth, to drop the phrase. He agreed last week to drop it.
But proponents of gay marriage and civil unions yesterday said the language at the beginning of the amendment -- to "protect the unique relationship of marriage in order to promote . . . the stability and welfare of society and the best interest of children" -- could eventually be used to mount a legal challenge to civil unions or domestic partner benefits. They say anti-gay-marriage laws in California and Maine have been used to mount similar challenges to other gay rights.
As a result, lawmakers and lobbyists favoring gay rights said they will spend the rest of the week cautioning lawmakers that a vote for the Travis amendment would ban not only gay marriage, but also civil unions or even domestic partner benefits, which several communities are seeking for municipal employees. The strategy is meant to appeal to lawmakers who are saying they will back the proposed amendment banning marriage but would support subsequent legislation creating civil unions.
"It is a Trojan horse, no question," said David Harris, executive director of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights with the Boston Bar Association. "It's intended to swing legislators who would be in favor of civil unions with a compromise to support this without the last four words, but it can't deliver."
Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said, "They're trying to trick people. It's very dangerous, and legislators will be furious" when they find out.
Lawyers who support the proposed amendment disagreed, however, chalking up the allegations as a last-ditch scare tactic to win over hestitant lawmakers.
Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard Law School professor consulted by Governor Mitt Romney and others seeking advice on overturning the Supreme Judicial Court's Nov. 18 ruling, said she has absolute faith that the proposed amendment, lacking the last four words, would preserve the Legislature's right to eventually create civil unions.
"After the amendment, we're in a whole new ballgame where what kinds of benefits for what kinds of households is open for discussion," Glendon said.
Ronald A. Crews, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which is spearheading the move to pass the amendment, said he was not altogether certain that civil unions would pass constitutional muster if the amendment were enacted, but said his primary goal for now is simply to define marriage.
"I think that this amendment does not necessarily forbid nor necessarily provide for civil unions," Crews, who spoke at yesterday's rally, said in an interview. "We see that as a separate debate. It would be my strong hope, and we will work diligently, to defeat what I call `marriage-light' civil unions."
A strategist working with the leadership in the House of Representatives said yesterday that House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran is busy attempting to craft a compromise amendment that would directly allay legislators' fear that they are somehow foreclosing the possibility of creating civil unions. The official added that Finneran is also worried that the issue could harm Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. Kerry has said he favors civil unions, and has said he would not yet endorse the proposed amendment because he's not certain it protects lawmakers' rights to build such a system.
Globe staff writer Frank Phillips contributed to this report.
