By Curt Lovelace

May 24--A bill to legally define marriage in Massachusetts as the union of one man and one woman sparked raucous debate on Beacon Hill last week, but beyond the State House and activist circles there is little interest in the proposal. 

    Rep. Colleen Garry, D-Dracut, told Massachusetts News: "There is not a lot of lobbying on this." Garry hasn’t received any phone calls or letters on the issue from anyone in her district. And not one constituent has tried to schedule a meeting about the issue. 

    The bill’s future is uncertain, said Garry, a member of the Joint Judiciary Committee, which opened debate on the proposed Defense of Marriage Act last Tuesday. 

   But lack of interest beyond Beacon Hill didn’t curtail opponents of the bill from denouncing it as "hateful" and comparing it to ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, the school massacre in Littleton, Colo., and the killing of homosexual student Matthew Shepherd. 

   Black ministers who support the bill were also chastised, and lectured by one Democratic representative as being ignorant of the proposed law’s meaning. Rep. Gale Candaras, D-Wilbraham, who is white, told black supporters of the Defense of Marriage Act that she could not "believe that people of color can support this legislation, which is framed in the same terminology as the legislation which barred your own people from civil rights." 

   Alveda King, a former Georgia legislator and a niece of the late Martin Luther King Jr., said that lawmakers should not "confuse skin color with sexual orientation." King also spoke about the great need for families to have one mother and one father. This is better, she said, for propagating the human race and passing down traditional values. 

    Other prominent black leaders echoed King in testimony before the committee. They included Rev. Richard Richardson of the Black Ministerial Alliance and Rev. Gilbert Thompson of the New Covenant Christian Center in Dorchester. 

   The bill, if enacted, would insert into Massachusetts General Law a definition of marriage. This definition would state that "a marriage is a civil contract and shall be defined as a relationship between one man and one woman." The bill also says that each partner should be 18 years of age, not related, and that the contract involve only two people. 

Barney Frank Denounces Traditional Marriage 

   Dozens of people testified before the committee. There were legislators, activists, clergy, lawyers, university professors, homosexual activists and common citizens. Democratic Congressman Barney Frank flew in from Washington, D.C., to testify for three minutes. And Cambridge City Councilor Katherine Triantafillou also spoke. She and Frank denounced the Defense of Marriage Act as divisive, unnecessary and unconstitutional. 

   To make such a law would be a hateful act, said Frank and his allies. The only impact of the law, if it passes, "would be to denigrate and inflict wounds upon thousands in this state," he said. 

   Yet not all the speakers there saw things that way. Imam Talal Eid of the Islamic Center of New England told the committee that he was "not here to discriminate; that's not what America is about." Rather, Eid said, he and the others who spoke in favor of the bill (H472) were present to speak "in favor of family and nation." 

    Bishop John McNamara of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference also denied any negative connotations to the proposed law. He told legislators that his aim was "to support the ancient definition of family, not to harm anyone." 

    Stating that he was loathe to leave his study but that he must be heard on this issue, Rabbi Y. A. Korff said that people must respond to homosexuals "with love, intelligence and compassion." He added, however, that this does not mean that society should change its values or its long-held definition of a family as "a mother, a father, and, God willing, children." 

  Korff asked the legislators, rhetorically, whether they would be likely to sanction the relationship between a man and man’s best friend, the dog. He said that while such a relationship might be a "warm and loving relationship, it’s not a marriage." 

Anti-Gay Law? 

   While proponents of the bill spoke in terms of compassion and love, its opponents responded in a more combative tone. Liberal lawmakers, homosexual activists, and self-proclaimed progressives testified that to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman is to set our nation back to a more primitive time. 

   Councilor Triantafillou, an attorney, used the separation-of-church-and-state claim and then took time to explain scriptural teaching to the clergy present. She told them that "the Bible doesn't define marriage." 

   One member of the opposition-coalition leveled a not-so-veiled threat at the legislators. Sue Hyde, with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, told the committee members that "we will regard votes for [the bill] as anti-gay votes." 

Homosexuals Look To Vermont 

    Most opponents of the proposed law told the committee that the bill was unnecessary. But Prof. Dwight Duncan of the Southern New England School of 

   Law presented a different view. He testified that legislative and judicial proceedings in other states, primarily Hawaii and Vermont, could dictate how Massachusetts deals with marriage licenses issued to homosexual or lesbian couples. Vermont has a case before the courts now which could have the force of allowing same-sex marriages. 

   Duncan called the possible change in Vermont law a "clear and present danger" to the citizenry of Massachusetts. He quoted homosexual leaders as having promised to cross the border to get marriage licenses, which they would expect the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to honor. 

    The Massachusetts Defense of Marriage Act must be passed soon, he said, to prevent a Vermont court from dictating to Massachusetts what constitutes a family. 

   Colbe Mazzarella, an attorney, summed up the argument in favor of the bill. The mother of six told the committee, "I come from a long line of mothers and fathers." Mothers and fathers have always created the following generations, she said, adding that this legislation merely codifies that relationship in our state. 
    
Curt Lovelace is a free-lance writer who lives in Groton, Mass. He has reported on Massachusetts politics for many years.