Amendment would turn gay marriages into unions
Lawmakers get proposal today
With international attention focused on Beacon Hill, the Massachusetts Legislature will consider today a new version of a state constitutional amendment that would restrict marriage to heterosexuals beginning in 2006 and reclassify same-sex marriages that take place over the next two years as civil unions.
The revised proposal was immediately denounced by gay activists, who saw it as overturning the historic Supreme Judicial Court rulings declaring same-sex marriage constitutional, and by gay marriage opponents who also oppose civil unions.
The newly crafted, 353-word amendment surfaced less than 24 hours before today's showdown over defining marriage in Massachusetts. The House and Senate were set to convene at 2 p.m. today in a constitutional convention, and legislative leaders were planning to pull the marriage amendment to the top of the agenda, so it will be considered first. The leaders said the debate may extend into tomorrow.
An estimated 4,000 activists are expected at the State House for what observers say will be one of the most dramatic events to take place in the two-century-old building. A week ago, the SJC rejected an alternative approach by state senators to change the law, by prohibiting gay marriage and creating civil unions.
The revised proposal would define marriage in the state constitution as solely the union of a man and a woman. It also would create civil unions for gay couples that would provide "all the benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities under state law" that are extended to heterosexual spouses.
If passed by the convention and approved by voters, the amendment would reclassify the same-sex marriages that would take place between May 17, when the SJC ruling takes effect, and when ballots are cast in November 2006. Those gay marriages would then be considered civil unions.
"This approach restores these important social policy decisions back to the Legislature," Senate President Robert E. Travaglini told reporters. "It allows an opportunity for the voters of the Commonwealth to render an opinion."
The revised amendment is sponsored by Senate minority leader Brian Lees and was designed to head off a more stringent amendment by Representative Philip Travis, a Rehoboth Democrat, that some legal specialists say would not permit civil unions. But the latest effort created even more political turmoil, with few legislators and activists expressing confidence on what the vote tally might be.
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, a longtime opponent of gay marriage, said last night that he opposes the rewritten version. He predicted that most House members, whose 160 members dominate the convention, will oppose the newest measure. He seized on a difference between the Senate's proposal and his own: The new amendment would enshrine several other changes in the state constitution, while his changes would be made to state statutes.
"I think it's highly inappropriate to utilize the constitution to try to advance statutory text," Finneran said. "I don't have a sense that there's strong interest in the House for putting, as I said earlier, statutory text in the constitution. We have an appreciation for the constitution."
The House leader said it is still possible the Legislature can pass a law, not a constitutional amendment, that would create civil unions, but also bar the issuance of marriage licenses to gays. Other lawmakers, including Lees, insisted the newest proposed constitutional amendment was gaining support as the clock ticked toward today's convention.
"We've gotten extremely positive feedback from members in both parties," Lees said.
Even gay rights activists and their legislative supporters, who sharply criticized what they saw as a major retreat from the court's ruling giving them marriage rights, admitted their support was eroding quickly. "This is absolutely hurting us, terribly," said Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. "We begged them not to do this."
Advocates say full-fledged gay marriage would give same-sex couples hundreds of benefits, affecting everything from retirement to property ownership, now enjoyed by heterosexual couples. Civil unions, like those offered in Vermont since 2000, offer some state benefits, but gay advocates argue that many of those benefits would not extend beyond the state's borders.
The showdown follows by nearly three months the SJC's 4-3 decision declaring that the state's denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples violates the constitution's equal protection provisions. In a second ruling Feb. 4, the same justices said a proposed civil unions law would create an "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."
Those rulings shook the political establishment, sparked national and international attention, and interjected what political analysts say is a "wedge issue" into the 2004 presidential campaign.
"This is the cultural issue of our lifetime," said Ronald A. Crews, the spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage, the lead group fighting to pass an anti-gay marriage amendment. "This has the same import of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, in terms of potential divide."
Republicans are expected to use the Massachusetts case to attack US Senator John F. Kerry as a Massachusetts liberal, even though he has refused to rule out support for the gay marriage ban. Massachusetts Democrats, including Finneran and other legislators who are backing his candidacy, are trying to blunt those attacks by barring gay marriage, some lawmakers say.
The Democratic National Convention will take place in Boston this July, only weeks after gay couples will be able to secure civil marriage licenses, which is set to take place beginning May 17.
According to sources in the Senate ledership, Travaglini is expected to use his position as the constitutional convention's presiding authority to make sure the bipartisan compromise amendment will be taken up first among the 10 items on the agenda. The debate could extend beyond today's session.
If the latest amendment does not pass, lawmakers might try to rewrite it and attempt to find enough votes to pass it. The latest compromise, which was fashioned behind closed doors, has also created an unusual confluence of common interest for gay activists and social conservatives: While they approach the definition of who can marry from opposite perspectives, neither side wants a civil union provision.
"We absolutely do not want the compromise they are discussing," Isaacson said. "It's discrimination under the constitution."
Crews said his coalition is urging its supporters in the House and Senate to oppose inclusion of language that mandates a civil union system for gays.
"We find it unacceptable," Crews said. "These people want the word marriage protected in our constitution as the union of one man and one woman, period. We are not interested in seeing this amendment [watered down with] an intrusion of some statutory language dealing with civil unions. We want to preserve the definition of marriage."
Crews said his group opposes giving "government validity to behavior we believe is harmful to persons and potentially harmful to our society."
Peter J. Gomes, professor of Christian morals at Harvard University, echoed a similar theme when he addressed a crowd of 2,500 gay activists rallying inside the State House yesterday, calling the day "the eve of an historic opportunity to do good or mischief."
"In this constitutional process, our legacy and our futures are at stake," Gomes said.
Today's convention follows days of wrangling that has reached an intensity that is rarely seen on Beacon Hill.
Representative Michael Festa, Democrat of Melrose, said he and many of his colleagues resented being forced to vote on a compromise amendment with so little time to analyze it.
As a measure of how high emotions were running yesterday, Representative Charles Murphy, Democrat of Burlington, called for Finneran to resign because he forced the Legislature "into another constitutional crisis." "He's been sitting on this," Murphy said, referring to gay rights. "He's an embarrassment." 