Gay-marriage foes aim for double ban on '08 ballot

Gay-marriage opponents have filed a petition to put on the 2008 ballot a ban on both same-sex marriage and civil unions, opening a new front in the debate over the divisive issue with which lawmakers will continue to grapple later this month.

The petition was filed by a Wakefield minister who is concerned that lawmakers will send voters a proposed constitutional amendment for a 2006 ballot that would ban gay marriage but allow civil unions. The minister opposes civil unions as well as gay marriage.

"In the event the Legislature either fails to act or passes a proposed amendment that includes civil unions, that is incrementalism, and I just can't agree with that," said the Rev. Michael Carl of Greenwood Union Church in Wakefield. "We will wait to see what the Legislature does, and what [Governor Mitt] Romney does. If the governer doesn't act -- I don't want to make it sound like this is an ultimatum -- then I will go ahead with my petition."

Carl, a native of Texas, has been a resident of Massachusetts for three years. He heads the Heritage Alliance, a political action committee he recently formed to field candidates to run against legislators who support gay marriage. He filed his petition with the state attorney general's office Feb. 27.

His proposal would amend the state constitution to read, in part: "Marriage . . . shall henceforth be defined in the Commonwealth as the voluntary, consensual union between one man and one woman. All statutes and laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts shall henceforth conform thereto."

On March 29, lawmakers will reconvene a special legislative session aimed at getting an amendment on the 2006 ballot. That amendment defines marriage as the union of a man and woman and establishes civil unions in the state.

The amendment, backed by Senate President Robert E. Travaglini and House Speaker Thomas Finneran, has earned the ire of gay-marriage supporters and of their opponents, who call civil unions "marriage lite." If a majority of legislators approve that amendment at the March 29 Constitutional Convention and it gains a majority again in next year's session, it will be placed on the ballot in 2006. If voters approve it, the amendment will become law.

Carl and gay-marriage opponents are taking a different route to the ballot, one that is relatively easy. After the attorney general's office approves its language, Carl and his supporters must collect signatures from 65,825 certified voters from at least four towns. After those signatures are certified, a Constitutional Convention must consider it.

To move forward, a citizen petition requires approval by one-quarter of the legislators in the special combined session -- just 51 votes. If the measure clears that bar in the 2005-2006 session, and again in the 2007-2008 session, the amendment will be put before the voters in 2008.

Gay-marriage supporters were not surprised that the petition had been filed.

"This is clearly drafted as a fallback for them, in case things didn't go their way in the Legislature," said Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. "Obviously, we would hate to see an initiative petition for a constitutional amendment to take our marriage rights away move forward."

The Supreme Judicial Court has declared gay marriage legal, saying that the state should begin granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples starting May 17. If the Legislature acts to send a ballot initiative, Romney is considering a plan to ask the SJC for a stay until voters can act.

The debate over gay marriage has been an emotional one. Ordinary citizens on both sides have descended on the State House in the thousands and legislators struggled with the issue, sometimes tearfully. Even if those legislators eventually agree on an amendment that its supporters call a compromise, Carl's petition would mean two more years of struggle over the issue.

"Why are our opponents putting legislators through a vote now when they can just wait for the initiative petition, which requires only 50 votes, which they'll get easily?" Isaacson said. "It doesn't seem fair to us, or to legislators."

The 2008 question could provide an out for legislators, many of them Republican, who oppose civil unions but who voted for the Finneran-Travaglini version of the amendment on March 11 to keep some kind of gay-marriage ban alive. House minority leader Bradley H. Jones did not return calls yesterday.

Representative Elizabeth Poirier, a North Attleborough Republican, called the Finneran-Travaglini amendment "a poison pill that is destined to fail," but she refused to say whether she would support the amendment proposed for the 2008 ballot. She and other legislators still hope to substitute for the current amendment another one that defines marriage as the union of a man and woman without granting civil unions.

A previous initiative petition for an amendment to ban gay marriage was brought before a Constitutional Convention in 2002 but was defeated in a procedural maneuver by then-Senate President Thomas F. Birmingham, who gaveled the special session closed before a vote was taken. Supporters of the amendment decried Birmingham's actions, accusing him of thwarting democracy.

Ronald A. Crews, spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage, which is leading the charge for an amendment to ban gay marriage, said he was pleased that Carl had filed his petition.

"If we are unsuccessful this time around, then that becomes the recourse to keep the issue alive," said Crews, who was in Washington with other opponents of gay marriage, devising strategy for a federal constitutional amendment to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying. "If the Legislature is insistent on sending an amendment that is muddied by two subjects, then I would support an effort to amend that to have a clear definition of marriage, period."

A second petition filed with the attorney general's office March 15 calls for a constitutional amendment to force the Legislature to call every year for a federal Constitutional Convention to consider a national ban on gay marriage.

A federal amendment requires approval by two-thirds of the House and the Senate, and approval in 38 states before it takes effect.

The petition was filed by Stephanie W. Morris, a Nebraska native and Needham resident who has lived in Massachusetts for two years, and is part of an organization called Families for America, which was formed to fight for the federal amendment.