Massachusetts News--March, 2000

The state Senate is working very quietly to legalize "gay marriage," according to concerned citizens.

It plans to begin the process by recognizing "partners" of state employees. Cities and towns would also be allowed to recognize the "partners" of their employees.

"This is only the beginning," says Brian Camenker, President of the Parents’ Rights Coalition. "If we allow this to happen, we will, in effect, have destabilized the basic institution of our society, which is marriage between a man and a woman — which has served us for thousands of years for the protection of women and children." He added:

"In addition, does anyone have any idea how much this would cost?" 

The Massachusetts Senate was working in total silence until Massachusetts News published a story on January 20 on its website about a new bill which had been filed earlier in the month with no publicity. 

The Boston Globe picked up the story a few days later and published a story with the headline, "Quiet Push In Mass. For Same-Sex Law." The Globe article was friendly to the Senate bill and said: "…gays have launched a quiet campaign based on face-to-face lobbying and personal appeals to win over opponents…" 

"They sure do want to keep it quiet because they remember what happened in Newton in 1997," says Camenker.

In that year, the Board of Aldermen in Newton, one of the most liberal cities in the state, overwhelmingly passed a domestic partner program for city employees. Within 15 days, the citizens gathered 3,500 signatures against the bill and presented them to the City, which had the choice of rescinding the measure or putting the question to the voters. The Board promptly rescinded the bill because, they told the town newspaper, they knew that it wouldn’t be approved by the voters.
 
 

The Acting President of the Massachusetts Family Institute, Dan Englund, said, "Taxpayers and businesses should not be compelled to subsidize either homosexual unions or non-marital heterosexual partnerships, both of which undermine the institutions of marriage and family."

The Senate bill is supported by both Democrats and Republicans, including the Republican leader Brian Lees who told the Globe he considers the bill a matter of fairness.

A Massachusetts News head count of the Senate now shows easy passage for the bill in that chamber. Passage in the slightly more conservative House isn’t as certain, however.

Speaker Finneran told the Globe he is concerned about who would be covered under the bill. He mused that two caring sisters could also be supportive, caring and committed to each other, and he questioned why sex should be a dividing line. Others wondered whether those two sisters are required by our society to have sex together in order to gain our official support. 

Also, Gov. Cellucci is on record as stating that such a broad grant of benefits to "unmarried" couples would weaken the traditional family structure. 

Those who favor changing the laws about marriage are firm in their mission. "Re-defining family is at the forefront of the gay and lesbian agenda," says the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. 

The effect of the bill is not apparent from its bland title, "An Act Providing For Equal Employment Benefits for Public Sector Employees."

Which Will Massachusetts Choose?

The controversy arises because of the Vermont Supreme Court’s decision on marriage last December which startled the country. 

The bill currently in the Senate in Massachusetts is one of two competing bills in our legislature. The other bill is in the House. The Senate bill is favored by the homosexual activists while they oppose the House bill.

Even if both bills became law, there would not be any conflict between them. The Senate bill has no direct effect on the "institution" of marriage. Instead, it allows "benefits" to be given to unmarried "domestic partners" of employees of the state as though they were married. It would allow group insurance benefits to be given to "partners" of state employees. Such "partners" could be either heterosexual or homosexual. 

Likewise, the bill that is in the House about the "institution" of marriage would not affect the law which the Senate is attempting to pass. It would define "marriage" as it has always been understood and would specifically state that "marriage" between persons of the same gender is not valid in Massachusetts. This bill is now bottled-up in committee and will not come out of the committee without a concerted effort.

If both bills pass, then the question of gay marriage would be eliminated and the institution of marriage would have been strengthened is the mantra, but many say it would have been a hollow victory because "marriage" would have become superfluous. 

Where does the public stand? 

In major polls conducted by Gallop and Wirthlin, voters say they oppose extending marriage benefits to same-sex couples by margins that ranged from 68 percent to 84 percent. An ICR Survey Research Group Media poll found 57 percent opposed and only 30 percent in favor. 

Even the ACLU acknowledged in a 1999 press release that some 300 additional laws would likely change in Vermont when a domestic partner law is passed there. The same could likely be said in Massachusetts. Few know what those changes would encompass.

Thirty states outside of Massachusetts have passed laws defining marriage as the union between a man and woman.

As one nineteen-year-old Northeastern University student who requested anonymity, observed, "I definitely think it undermines the family. I just don’t think it’s normal." As for her friends, she says, "Oh, I think I’m a lot more open minded than my friends, and I don’t think any of them support same-sex marriages either. I just don’t think it’s right to set out to raise kids without a mother and a father." 

These views were shared by a majority of voters in two states, Alaska and Hawaii, where residents were given the opportunity to vote on the issue in referendums without polling bias or confusing questions. They voted against same-sex marriages. 

"Frankly, I think we’d do better letting the general public and the democratic process decide the issue rather than in the courts, academia or the legal profession," says Dwight G. Duncan, who teaches at Southern New England School of Law in North Dartmouth. 

"A recent survey of law school articles showed that 99% of the law review articles on the subject were in favor of same-sex marriages. That means that on this very controversial issue where the public is against it, the legal academy is marching in lockstep for the grand social scheme. I guess what I’m saying is that we’re better off with the man and woman on the street. They understand that it’s better for children to have a mother and father than two fathers or two mothers." 

Senate Bill Filed Quietly

The Senate bill, No. 1387, which was filed very quietly, is sponsored by three Democrats, Diane Wilkerson, Susan Fargo and Christopher Hodgkins in addition to Republican Lees. It was filed on January 6th and seeks to amend existing statutes by inserting the words "or domestic partner" after "spouse" wherever the word "spouse" appears. It is framed as a law aimed at providing "equal employment benefits for public sector employees."

The bill in the House was filed by Rep. Rogers of Norwood (D) on behalf of himself and Reps. Francis L. Marini (R) and Kevin Poirier (R) to prohibit "same gender" marriages in Massachusetts. It has a definition of marriage as "a legal relationship between one man and one woman, who consent to take each other exclusively as husband and wife." 

The Senate bill seeks to nullify an April 1999 decision by the SJC in which the state’s highest court said that under the existing statutes of Massachusetts, insurance benefits for workers of cities and town are available only to traditional "dependents," a group the court read as "wives and children." The new Senate bill would change those statutes by defining "domestic partner" as an employee "and his partner [who] reside in a common household and share financial responsibilities and expenses." It excludes those not yet eighteen-years-of-age, those who would be barred from traditional marriage because of blood relation, and those already married to someone else. It also excludes traditional family members caring for one another and/or a child, such as two elderly sisters, or a child caring for a grandparent. It requires only that those living in a "domestic partner" relationship affirm that they "intend to reside indefinitely as the other’s sole partner." 

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court indicated earlier this year that it will probably side with those proposing same-sex marriage. It decided a landmark case without consulting the public, or deferring the question of public policy to the legislature, when it found that a lesbian partner has the right to demand visitation with a child after she split with the mother of the child. The court declared that "the recognition of de facto parents is in accord with notions of modern family," a proposition that the only dissenting judge, Justice Fried, found disturbing. He wrote a blistering dissent.

Joe Doyle of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts found the court’s decision to be troubling. "It’s an arbitrary and revolutionary redefinition of the family by an out-of-control, rogue judiciary acting on behalf of an aggressive special interest," he says.

Private Sector Acts On Its Own.

As if matters aren’t confusing enough, dozens of private employers have skirted the cultural, moral and legal issues altogether and have voluntarily extended full "spousal benefits" to same sex partnerships regardless of any understanding of the long term effects their decisions will have on society. The list is growing: Walt Disney, Apple Computer, Levi Strauss, Lotus Development Corporation, Viacom, Home Box Office, Microsoft, Beth Israel Medical Center, Consumers United Insurance, The National Organization of Women, MCA, Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, Consumer United Insurance and The Village Voice, to name a very few. 

Should the Commonwealth prohibit the extension of same-sex benefits on the grounds that such unions are inconsistent with public policy, private employers who provide such benefits would only be undermining the policy the state has articulated as fundamental to the well being of its people.