SAME-SEX MARRIAGE (SSM) IN MASSACHUSETTS:

ACTIVITIES FROM 2004-FEB TO 2004-MAY-16

The constitutional amendment.
Events leading up to marriage equality

Sponsored link.

2004-FEB-02: Court confirms that same-sex marriage is the only constitutional option:

Some state legislators had suggested that the court's ruling was ambiguous. They hoped that a full civil union system, such as is available to same-sex couples in Vermont, might be found constitutional by the state Supreme Judicial Court. The state Senate formally asked the court for a ruling.

On FEB-02, the state Supreme Judicial Court issued an advisory opinion in response to the Senate's request. They ruled that a parallel system of civil unions would not be constitutional. Vermont-style civil unions will not suffice. They wrote that a bill that created same-sex civil unions as a parallel system to opposite-sex marriages makes for: "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples....The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."

This ruling cleared the way for full same-sex marriages starting in 2004-MAY-17.

Some responses:

The only way to overturn the court's decision would be for the state to amend its constitution to specifically deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

2004-FEB-11: Debate scheduled for the state constitutional amendment:

A Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment to the state constitution was written and introduced in both the House and Senate. It would modify the constitution to prevent same-sex couples from marrying. In order to be implemented, the amendment would have to be passed by both the House and Senate during two constitutional conventions in two successive legislative sessions, and then win a majority vote of the public in the 2006-NOV polls.

The amendment was scheduled to be debated in a joint session of the legislature on 2003-FEB-11. ₁ However, Senate President Robert Travaglini (D) is reported as saying on 2004-JAN-12 that he would postpone the debate if the Supreme Judicial Court had not ruled on the constitutionality of civil unions.

2004-MAR-11: Legislators approve resolutions:

Legislators from the Massachusetts House and Senate met in a constitutional convention during February but were unable to reach an agreement on a path forward. They met again in early March, and approved three resolutions which start the process towards a constitutional amendment. It would single same-sex couples out as a group, and deny them the right to marry. There are a few sections in U.S. state constitutions that grant special rights to identifiable groups, based on their religion (as for Quakers) or ethnic origin (as for Native Americans). If passed, we believe that this will be only the third state constitution -- after Alaska and Hawaii -- who grant special privileges to a group based on sex.

Hundreds of people chanted and waved signs within and outside of the State House. Some signs read: "If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one," "No discrimination in the Constitution," "Love for people, not for sin," and "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Other demonstrators chanted: "God's way. One man, one woman" and "One man, one woman. Let the people vote."

Some details of the resolutions:

The strategy of the Massachusetts Family Institute, (MFI) and the Family Research Council, two principal agencies opposing SSM in the state, was to "bifurcate" the proposed amendment so that the voters will be asked to express their stand on two separate topics. As the amendment was written, in order for a voter to restrict marriage to one man-one woman, they would have to vote in favor of civil unions for same-sex couples. MFI wanted to split the amendment into two questions: the first would reserve marriage for one man and one woman; the second would create a system of civil unions. Their apparent hope was that the voters would approve the former and reject the latter, leaving gays, lesbians and some bisexuals without any legal recognition of their relationships, and thus they and their children would receive none of the rights given to married couples. Their backup position was to reluctantly accept the existing amendment, even though it grants limited rights to same-sex couples. _2,3

The strategy of the Freedom to Marry Coalition of Massachusetts appeared to be to kill the proposed amendment, and allow the court's decision to stand. Their backup position appeared to reluctantly accept the existing amendment, even though it makes same-sex couples into second-class citizens. They reasoned that it would be better to be second-class citizens with limited rights than third-class citizens with no relationship rights at all. ₄

2004-MAR-29: Initial approval of constitutional amendment:

The Massachusetts House and Senate met again in a constitutional convention on MAR-29 for a final vote on the resolutions. They approved them by a relatively narrow vote of 105 to 92. The resolution needed 101 votes to proceed. The next step is for the next House and Senate to approve the measure again in 2005. It would then be voted upon by the public in 2006.

According to the Freedom to Marry Coalition, eight legislators voted against the resolution because they strongly oppose any legal recognition of same-sex relationships at all. They want to exclude gays and lesbians from even being allowed to enter civil unions. ₅ But their decision makes no sense. In voting against the resolution, they almost derailed the constitutional amendment. And if the amendment did not go forward, then the Supreme Judicial Court's decision will stand; same sex couples will be allowed to marry for the foreseeable future. So by trying to deny same-sex couples the right to a civil union, they made it more likely that these couples would be allowed to marry. This is curious reasoning.

Within minutes of the approval, Governor Mitt Romney (R) said he will ask the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) to delay implementation of its 2003-NOV ruling which ordered the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. He said that he will request a formal stay of its decision until the constitutional amendment process is completed, probably in 2006. According to the Massachusetts Family Institute, "Attorney General Tom Reilly is unwilling to cooperate with the Governor's request for the SJC to delay the imposition of their decision on gay marriage." ₆

Neither side was pleased with the approval of the amendment. Demonstrators filled the hallways of the Statehouse, crying "Jesus Christ" and "Equal Rights." Two opposing comments:

The Freedom to Marry Coalition feels that they will be able to prevent the amendment from being passed in the next legislative session. They wrote in a news release: "In spite of what the governor is saying, thousands of same-sex couples will be getting married on and after May 17th.  Once these marriages occur this entire debate will be transformed.  These marriages will show that people have nothing to fear or worry about.  These marriages will help a small percentage of the population a great deal; and, they will hurt no one!  The beauty and dignity of these ceremonies will continue to open people's hearts." ₅ If the Supreme Judicial Court turns down the governor's request to suspend their ruling and prevent same-sex couples from marrying, then the stakes will subtlety shift. Instead of trying to prevent same-sex couples from marrying, social conservatives will be trying to destroy probably thousands of existing marriages involving loving committed couples and their children.

Activities as 2004-MAY-17 data approached:

May 17 is the date when the Supreme Judicial Court's of Massachusetts -- the state's supreme court -- has ordered that marriage licenses be made available to both opposite and same-sex couples.