Bryan Rudnick, chairman of Mass. Citizens for Marriage, and his opponent, Joshua Friedes, political director of Freedom to Marry Coalition

Framingham Democratic Committee Wants Gay Marriage

Constitutional Amendment Debated at Meeting

By Ed Oliver
October 2001

Bryan Rudnick and his opponent, Joshua Friedes, fielded questions about the “Protection of Marriage Amendment” at a meeting of the Framingham Democratic Town Committee last month.

Rudnick is chairman of Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage, a group that is gathering signatures for a proposed ballot question that would reaffirm the legal status of marriage as the union between one man and one woman through a constitutional amendment.

Joshua Friedes is political director of the Freedom to Marry Coalition, which is one of the gay activist groups that are marshalling to fight the proposed constitutional amendment.

Most of the comments and questions from the two dozen or so skeptical democrats in the room were directed toward Rudnick.

The questioners voiced suspicion of Rudnick’s motives and financing, and expressed hostility toward the amendment as a sort of stealth religious crusade and an unfair bar to spousal benefits for gays.

Casual Attitude

Most astounding was the casual attitude displayed toward tinkering with traditional marriage, but the people in the room were activist Democrats from Framingham and Ashland and did not represent a wide range of opinion.

Friedes told the group that people usually think of marriage in terms of love, commitment and mutual support, but they do not often think about marriage as a gateway to 1400 legal rights, benefits and responsibilities.

“That’s what you’re really talking about when you are talking about denying gays and lesbians the right to civil marriage,” said Friedes.

Rudnick pointed out that as long as benefits remain exclusive to marriage, “Then it could not be given out to unmarried heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.”

Rudnick calmly explained that the proposed amendment merely seeks to preserve the unique status of marriage that we have had in Massachusetts and our nation all along. He explained that benefits and privileges of marriage extending from the state would indeed be limited to traditional marriages, but the amendment would not prevent gays from living together, adopting children or receiving company benefits as they do now.

Rudnick also pointed out that extending benefits to domestic partners would cost the state at least $15 million in the first year, which would result in higher taxes and cuts in the budget.

Very Informative

After the meeting, Ruth Lieder from Framingham told MassNews, “I found it very informative. I like the idea that it was laid out and exposed for public consumption and that it was discussed openly and I hope objectively.”

She said she would have to give her vote a great deal of thought, but she does feel, “If they go for the benefits first, it would be a wedge to getting the marriage if that is what they really want.”

Esther Hopkins, who chairs the Framingham Democratic Town Committee, told Mass News she hopes the ballot question doesn’t pass.

“I believe that every individual has a right to formalize their relationships. I would hope that those people who have a different sexual orientation would end up being able to be people that have marriages and raise their children,”

Hopkins said she personally knows a gay couple who she thinks should be “equal.” She also said she attends the First Parish Unitarian Universalist Church, which she said is a “welcoming congregation” that performs blessing ceremonies on gay relationships.

Michael Kuralt from Ashland told MassNews that while he supports the right of the voters to decide, he personally does not support the ballot initiative and hopes it doesn’t make it.

“I can’t think of any rational reason why we should prohibit marriage between two men and two women,” he said.

Debbie Blommer from Framingham told MassNews she is absolutely opposed to the ballot question “Because I am a strong supporter of human rights and the extension of human rights that has been a tradition in this country over the centuries. This constitutional amendment is something that would stop people from moving forward and gaining more rights in the future.”