By Ed Oliver
June 2001

A range of voices was heard on Beacon Hill last month about the Protection of Marriage Bill, both pro and con. The bill seeks to codify marriage into law as a union of one man and one woman, as well as prohibit any other relationship from gaining legal equivalence to marriage.

Opposition to the marriage bill was expressed in the morning with a State House press conference in Nurse's Hall by a group of hundreds of mostly homosexual college students who call themselves "STOP H3375.ORG." 

They compared the marriage bill to the Nazi treatment of Jews, causing Bryan Rudnick, who is Executive Director of Mass Citizens Alliance to respond by telling reporters, "I find it offensive as the grandson of holocaust survivors that people would relate the bill to what my grandparents and my relatives went through who died in the gas chambers. That is wrong.

"The protection of marriage bill is about protecting children and insulating them with a mother and a father, whenever possible, to ensure they are a benefit and not a detriment to society."

Rudnick is optimistic about the bill's chances. " I think we stand a very good chance of passage of House Bill 3375, the protection of marriage bill. It's obvious that a majority of citizens in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts favor marriage between a man and a woman only, as it has always been understood."

State Senator Cheryl Jacques however, who sits on the Judiciary Committee and is a self-described lesbian as well as vocal opponent of the bill, told MassNews after the press conference, "I'm optimistic this bill will be unsuccessful."

Later during the hearings, Jacques stepped down from her seat on the Judiciary Committee to testify against the marriage bill.

"This bill has absolutely nothing to do with protecting marriage, and everything to do with preventing gay families and their children from having basic legal protection and basic legal rights," said Jacques, who added that "gay families" worry about the same things as other families, but without the legal protections.

Jacques was one of a dozen-or-so legislators who showed up to testify in opposition to the bill, as compared to two legislators who testified in favor. But observers believe that almost all the legislators who oppose the bill showed up to speak against it because they know it is popular and has broad support. Even Speaker Finneran came out in favor of the bill recently.

The tone of the hearing was set by an older Braintree woman, Jean B. Healy, who waited patiently for over eight hours to testify in favor of the bill. Healy told Massachusetts News, " I'm here to represent all women who support life and family."

In her prepared remarks, Healy told the Committee, "I propose a challenge to the Committee. For more than 20 years of radical feminist rhetoric, you have been polite. You have listened to the foolish nonsense of inclusive language, politically correct speech and the harangue of the noisy feminists who want to restructure society in their image. Women around the world have been saying loud and clear, from Boston to Beijing, 'You do not speak for us.' This legislation will reaffirm marriage as a natural and healthy state with the promise of building society with new life. I urge the Committee to report favorably on this bill."

In addition to over a dozen legislators testifying, there were two panels of speakers who testified in favor of the bill and three panels of speakers testifying against. The Judiciary Committee members did not say much except to occasionally ask the speakers who opposed the marriage bill to refrain from ad hominem attacks and demonizing of the opposition.

An attorney and mother of six who testified in favor of the bill's passage, Colbe C. Mazzarella, told the Committee that "children need their own parents in a permanent relationship. The government must not send any contrary message."

Mazzarella warned that the law and social institutions could change the face of the family.

The bill would not allow "marriage" between a man and two or more women nor would it give any benefits of marriage to heterosexual couples who do not marry. The many homosexual activists and their supporters at the hearing, however, tried to change the debate so as to make the bill look like a homosexual issue.

As a result, one of the committee chairmen, Rep. David T. Donnelly, questioned a panel of lawyers who were testifying in opposition to the bill whether they were opposed to the entire bill or only to portions of it.  "At some point, someone is going to have to make a decision, either us or the courts," he said.

He noted that the "Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders" (GLAD) already has a lawsuit in the works. Currently, seven gay "couples" are suing the state and seeking to obtain marriage licenses. They want to have gay marriages fully recognized.

Rep. Donnelly asked the lawyers in opposition to the bill if there would be an objection to the bill if the committee kept the first section of the law (4A) but got rid of the second section. The second section (4B) would prohibit legal equivalents to normal marriage. The first section defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

Rep. Donnelly also wondered about the potential actions of the courts regarding the GLAD lawsuit and if the matter would be sent back to the legislature.

The panel objected to the entire bill. They said that keeping the first part of the law would  "isolate" gays by drawing distinctions.

Mary Bonauto, who is the lead homosexual lawyer with GLAD, told Donnelly that the "regime" they are challenging in court right now is a regime based on the statutes and the practices over a period of time that they believe is unconstitutional. "So anything that this body does in terms of enacting 4A is not going to change anything with respect of a lawsuit which is premised entirely on our Constitution and principles of equality."

She said the question of who should decide this; the courts or the legislature is the wrong question. "The question is, what does the Constitution require?"