Shannon O'Brien Wanted Gay Marriage, Would Settle for Civil Unions as In Vermont

Romney Failed to Respond

MassNews Staff
December 2002 Print Edition

		Shannon O'Brien made a major switch on October 15 by saying she wanted "gay marriage," which would make Massachusetts the only state in the country to approve gay marriage, but she would settle for "civil unions" for gays, which is exactly what Vermont has. This was a big change because O'Brien had concealed this from voters before. When asked during the debate in Worcester only two weeks previously on Oct. 1, she said she was opposed to gay marriage.
Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial candidate Shannon O'Brien gestures as she takes the podium at her election night rally in Boston to concede to Republican opponent Mitt Romney. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola)

She indicated on the 15th, she would be very happy to sign a gay marriage bill if it reached her desk. "I would support a marriage piece of legislation," she said.

The promise was made to the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus which endorsed her for Governor in return.

However, O'Brien said she did not believe gay marriage would pass the Legislature now. If it does, she will happily sign it.

She said she planned to lobby for the Vermont-style civil unions, which have been rejected by every other state in the country except Vermont and which are exactly the same as marriage except for the name.

"I think the fight needs to focus on civil unions, because I think it is one that we can win."

As for gay marriage, she said, "I still believe there are some social and religious connotations that will make it much more difficult to win. I am fighting for civil unions. We can win this fight."

O'Brien aides told the Globe she has not changed her position, but was simply responding to a reporter's question that had never previously been posed: whether she would sign a gay marriage bill if it reached her desk. They said that that hypothetical situation is so unlikely to occur that O'Brien did not feel it was necessary to mention until she was asked that question directly.

However, she had been directly asked the question during the Worcester debate on October 1 and responded that she opposed gay marriage.

Romney failed to attack or challenge O'Brien about the July 17 violation of the law by most of the Democratic Party, which so shocked the citizens. At that time, Sen. President Tom Birmingham adjourned a Constitutional Convention without allowing a vote to be taken on the Protection of Marriage Amendment, as required under state law. This violation of the law by Birmingham was supported by the Globe.

The Marriage Amendment would outlaw gay marriage, among other things. The Amendment is supported by over 60% of the voters and received many more signatures than necessary last fall to be put on the ballot for a vote by the citizens in 2004.

Although the violation of the law has shocked and angered many, Romney did not point this out, but merely stated the obvious, that O'Brien had changed her stance.

He failed to challenge her even though prominent Democrats have called for a vote on the Amendment, including Sen. John Kerry, Robert Reich and Michael Dukakis. It is required by the laws of Massachusetts.

Romney continued to miss this opportunity to seriously damage O'Brien, say many pundits. When asked about marriage during their televised debate from Worcester, neither Shannon O'Brien nor Mitt Romney answered correctly, they say. It's not vital what they think about marriage because it is the voters who should be deciding this issue at the ballot box in 2004 - if the Democrats do not continue to break the law.

They say that Birmingham's violation of the law was why O'Brien beat Birmingham in the primary. After the Senate leader led the Democratic Party into the serious blunder, his personal negative ratings skyrocketed.

The Republicans missed an excellent opportunity, according to many experts. Instead, both Jane Swift (who has not yet called the Legislature back for a vote on the Amendment as is required of her under the state Constitution) and Mitt Romney seem intent on getting tarred and feathered with the same unlawful conduct, they say.

They say that O'Brien was wallowing in the same illegal blunder that so damaged Birmingham. Why didn't Romney point this out? What Romney and O'Brien think about marriage should not be the focus. What is important is would they obey the state Constitution, send this issue on to the people -as the people have demanded- for their vote at the election in 2004.

It is clear that instead of aiming for the Reagan Democrats, as Ronald Reagan did in order to build a lasting coalition, Romney was following the lead of Bill Weld and going for the middle without regard to where he was heading our society. His only goal was a personal win for himself.

A special edition of MassNews had just been mailed to 250,000 activist households in Massachusetts (more than half the circulation of the Boston Globe) in mid-October, which revealed the fascinating, sordid story of the illegal vote, mainly by the Democratic Party.

O'Brien and Romney disagree on "civil unions" as are found in Vermont, with O'Brien favoring them and Romney opposing them, although it is unclear whether either of them understood the term.

Romney had said in the past that he favors inheritance and visitation rights for gay partners. But they are able to have those rights at the present time, if they care deeply enough, by writing a simple Will. It also made many wonder why Romney has opposed the Protection of Marriage Amendment because that is exactly what he appeared to be proposing.

Romney said he would allow some benefits such as health care for government employees but he does not seem to understand that that also is permitted under the Protection of Marriage Amendment if there is sufficient support for the Legislature to approve them.

Even he doubted if the support exists in the Legislature because his staff told the Globe that any such move must wait until the state can afford it in light of the budget crunch and Romney's plan to repeal recent tax increases.

Romney accepted the support of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, a very tiny, almost non-existent, organization of gay and lesbian Republicans and stated he opposed gay marriage. "I believe the term marriage should be reserved to the marriage of a man and a woman," he stated. He pledged to the gay group, however, to lobby for domestic partnerships.