Copyright ©2001 Massachusetts News, Inc. Photocopying and data processing storage of all or any part of this issue may not be made without prior written consent. 

 

Marriage Has New Defenders on Beacon Hill

Strong Support for ‘Protection of Marriage Act’ 

Read full text of act

February 7, 2001

The topic of marriage is being hotly discussed on Beacon Hill this year. 

A bipartisan coalition has filed legislation that codifies marriage as “a legal relationship between one man and one woman.” 

The coalition is led by Rep. John Rogers (D-12th Norfolk) who is known as the second most important person in the House and by House Minority Leader Francis Marini (R-6th Plymouth) who is the leader of the Republicans in the House. 

This caught the attention of the Boston Globe last week and it printed a story that began this way, “New House and Ways and Means Chairman John H. Rogers is making another attempt to keep gay marriage out of Massachusetts.” 

But Rogers told the Globe that the bill is not meant to target any particular group and that it simply codifies the status quo regarding marriage. 

New Organization Is Helping
The effort to pass the legislation is spearheaded by a new citizens’ group, the Massachusetts Citizens Alliance, which is building a statewide grassroots lobbying effort. It seeks to educate the public on the threat posed to marriage as an institution by many feminists, some libertarians, homosexual activists and others. 

Its Board of Advisors includes:

· Ray Flynn, former Mayor of Boston and Ambassador to the Vatican;

· Robert H. Bradley, Bradley, Foster and Sargent, Inc.;

· Rep. Elizabeth Piorier, Attleboro;

· Rep. Michael Coppola, Foxboro;

· James L. Neal, businessman and Elder of the Mormon Church in Boston;

· Prof. Dwight G. Duncan, Southern New England College of Law;

· Major Stephen M. Carroll, Commanding Officer of the Cambridge District of the Salvation Army;

· Philip F. Lawler, Editor, Catholic World News.   

According to its Executive Director, Bryan Rudnick, the institution of marriage and the family is under attack in the state. 

He points out that legislation has also been filed this session which would put marriage in jeopardy by attempting to expand domestic partner benefits for all state employees. This would devalue the institution of marriage and introduce unprecedented moral, social and legal confusion, says Rudnick. He says that a domestic partner bill would send the wrong message to the children of the Commonwealth. Such legislation has been introduced by Rep. Liz Malia (D-11th Suffolk) and others. 

Rudnick’s bill states that, “Any other relationship shall not be recognized as marriage or its legal equivalent, or receive the benefits of marriage in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a matter of public policy.” 

Rogers told the Globe that, “Massachusetts issues thousands of licenses a year, and there’s not even a definition of marriage. There are definitions in all our general laws except for this one. If we have a common understanding of what marriage is, then we as a Legislature and society at large can choose to expand or restrict that definition accordingly.” 

Marriage Is Under Assault 
According to Rudnick, “Marriage is facing an assault from special interests like never before. At a time when we should be working to strengthen marriage, some members of the legislature are working to weaken it by proposing domestic partnership legislation that grants all of the benefits of marriage with none of the obligations. What kind of message does this send to the children of Massachusetts? Marriage was created thousands of years ago to protect children, not ‘partners.’”

Not surprisingly, homosexual activists disagree. The chairman of the Lesbian and Gay Political Alliance of Massachusetts, Jeremy Pittman, told the Globe, “It preemptively denies us any possibility of having our relationships recognized by the state. It puts in the law our second-class status and says that’s the way it’s going to be.” 

Feminist organizations like NOW will actively oppose protection of marriage. Surprisingly, the Libertarian Party has not been heard on the issue even though the homosexual newspaper, Bay Windows, reported last year that Libertarians were so stridently in favor of domestic partnerships that homosexual lobbyists urged them to be more quiet because they were getting the general populace stirred-up and causing problems for the activists. 

Rudnick scoffs at the argument that any efforts to exclude gays and others from marrying are homophobic. “That argument is absurd. Marriage is between a man and a woman, plain and simple. Just like the sky is blue and snow is white, marriage is between a man and a woman. Redefining marriage as anything else would introduce unprecedented moral and legal confusion into our society.”   

According to Rudnick, his organization has launched a massive effort to build an army of activists and to identify supporters in their efforts to lobby the legislature for passage of the Protection of Marriage legislation. 

“Thousands of citizens across Massachusetts have signed a petition in support of the Protection of Marriage legislation already. There is overwhelming support for our efforts by the people of Massachusetts. Hopefully, the legislature will listen to the voice of the people to sign the bill into law.” 

The Globe ended its story with a prediction from Pittman that the bill has little chance of passing but it could be a potent bargaining chip to “get the partnership bills off the table.” 

But Rudnick says they shouldn’t be too sure that it has little chance of passing. “This is predominately a conservative state,” he said. “All we need to do is to make sure that the people have all the facts.” 

Related:
WBZ/Channel 4 News' favors gay marriage
February 7, 2001