Gay Marriage Revisited Before Judiciary Committee
By Cyndi Roy of the State House News Service
      A year after lawmakers advanced a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and establishing civil unions, advocates on both sides of the issue were back on Beacon Hill Tuesday ardently defending their views.
      Those who support same-sex marriages say the unions created since May 17, 2004 have proven to be socially successful. Any attempt to nullify the marriages or take away the right to wed for future gay couples would create a second-class citizenry of residents, they said.
       “It’s been a year since the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that all families have equal rights under our state constitution,” said
Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. “And since
then, thousands of people, gay and straight, have gotten married. And the only repercussion has been that families and communities throughout the commonwealth had some joyful celebrations, our families have been made stronger, and Massachusetts has become a beacon of hope throughout the world for all people who believe in equal rights and human dignity.”
       But opponents say the Legislature must act to stop gay marriage, which they believe undermines the traditional family structure. They are urging lawmakers to support a constitutional amendment sponsored by Reps. Emile Goguen (D-Fitchburg) and Philip Travis (D-Rehoboth) banning same-sex marriage and its legal equivalent. That proposal was offered as an amendment during last year’s constitutional convention and was defeated, 103-94.
       They are also calling for the removal of the four SJC justices who found a legal right to gay marriage in the state constitution.
        “I’m totally appalled by what’s happening,” Lance Roulic of Billerica told committee members. “I have two young kids and I don’t want them hearing this stuff. Gay couples may have the right to engage in that behavior but it’s not a constitutional right.”
       Roulic was one of more than a hundred attendees who packed a State House hearing room Tuesday to speak on several competing proposals before the Judiciary Committee. Dozens of lawmakers also turned out to voice their support and opposition to certain proposals. Two bills would change Chapter 207 of the General Laws to codify the SJC’s decision, while others call for the nullification of all gay marriages performed since licenses were granted last May. Other bills call for the removal of the four SJC judges who ruled in favor of gay marriage, repeal of the 1913 statue that prohibits out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts, and the election of judges at the end of a six-year term.
       “We’re living in a lawless state where the constitution is ignored,” said gay marriage opponent Amy Contrada of Acton. Contrada urged the Legislature to nullify all gay marriages that have been performed.
On a vote of 105 to 92, the Legislature advanced a compromise
constitutional amendment last year that outlaws gay marriage but provides for civil unions with the full benefits of marriage. Lawmakers must approve the amendment again during this two-year session for it to go before voters on the 2006 ballot.
       Senate President Robert Travaglini, who co-sponsored the amendment with former House Speaker Thomas Finneran, has indicated consideration of the amendment will resume in the fall, when lawmakers may be forced to take a critical up-or-down vote on the measure.
        Both sides say the votes will likely be tight again the next time around and a victory is far from certain.
       “We’re going to have to lobby our tails off,” said Arline Isaacson,
co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. “We’re
having a hard time. It’s funny, everyone thinks we’re a shoo-in. We’re not.
I wish we were. We have some very serious problems with the con-con no one realizes.”
       Like what?
       “The vote counts,” Isaacson said.
       Lawmakers, too, admit that the decision will be a tough one to face, but say the political maneuvering that marked last year’s debate won’t exist the next time around.
       “The focus is going to be on convincing the majority of the wisdom of not supporting any constitutional amendment to take people’s rights away,” said Rep. Michael Festa (D-Melrose). “In some respects it is a very simple message, but it is a powerful one and one that is compelling. It will
actually, I think, be easier because a lot of the conversation last year
had to be about appreciating the nuances about voting for one amendment, not because we like it, but because we need to knock out something more onerous. Mercifully, all that is peeled away and we are faced with that stark choice.”