Powered by Google
Home
Listings
Editors' Picks
News
Music
Movies
Food
Life
Arts + Books
Rec Room
Moonsigns
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Personals
Adult Personals
Classifieds
Adult Classifieds
- - - - - - - - - - - -
stuff@night
FNX Radio
Band Guide
MassWeb Printing
- - - - - - - - - - - -
About Us
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Work For Us
Newsletter
RSS Feeds
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Webmaster
Archives



sponsored links
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
PassionShop.com
Sex Toys - Adult  DVDs - Sexy  Lingerie


   
  E-Mail This Article to a Friend

Doing the right thing
News from this week’s ConCon wasn’t all bad. Plus, gay-marriage heroes.

NEWS FROM THE constitutional convention is not as bad as it could have been. As we all know by now, the legislature met the first step of a three-step process to ban the civil marriages of same-sex couples in the Commonwealth. In doing so, however, lawmakers preserved the prospect of civil unions — which at least guarantees that some of the rights, benefits, and privileges of marriage will be extended to lesbian and gay couples, even if our political "leaders" succeed in amending the state constitution. Even more encouraging, though, is that the proposed amendment banning gay marriages passed by a slim five-vote margin.

When the ConCon convened February 11, only eight legislators — eight — were committed to full equality for same-sex couples. Over the four days of the ConCon, that number grew to 92. It’s clear that more and more lawmakers are less and less comfortable with the idea of voting to take away a minority’s civil rights. When the ConCon first convened, the expectation was that an outright ban on gay marriages would pass easily. It didn’t. In the end, it proved to be a struggle to pass a much-watered-down anti-gay-marriage measure that would grant the right of civil unions — an unheard-of idea a mere 12 months ago.

For this amendment to take effect, it must win a majority vote from the next class of legislators and then go before voters for final approval. But it seems reasonably likely that between now and the next ConCon — which will take place sometime during the 2005-’06 legislative session — enough legislators will come around to the view that, as the SJC noted February 3, "[t]he history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."

Even if the legislature fails to pass an amendment, it’s clear that opponents of gay-marriage rights will try to push through citizens’ ballot initiatives. And proponents on both sides of the issue are gearing up for the fall elections, targeting both pro- and anti-gay-marriage legislators. In other words, this issue is not going away anytime soon. Meanwhile, don’t expect the anti-civil-rights duo of Governor Mitt Romney and Attorney General Tom Reilly to let up on their anti-gay antics anytime soon.

Romney is determined to find a way to get the SJC to grant an unprecedented two-and-a-half-year stay of its November ruling. Why? He wants to avoid the "confusion" that will ensue if lesbian and gay couples marry after May 17 only to have voters outlaw such marriages in 2006. It was odd to hear Romney express concern for the "couples involved ... and for the children of these families" given his flip reply last February to one of the plaintiffs in the Goodridge lawsuit who had asked Romney what he would have her tell her eight-year-old daughter about why the governor opposed the little girl’s parents’ right to marry: Just tell her what you’ve been telling her all her life. If Romney truly had concern for such families, and really wanted to spare them "confusion," he would stop trying to change the constitution and let the SJC decision stand. But that’s not going to happen — because Romney really isn’t concerned about the welfare of these families. These days, his real concern lies with making an impression in the national political arena.

Reilly is refusing to represent Romney before the SJC to request a stay of the marriage ruling because, as Reilly says, there is no legal merit to the governor’s argument. But the attorney general — who is careful to explain that he deeply opposes the SJC’s ruling every time he says he won’t represent the governor in this matter — is perhaps most scurrilous in his willingness to use a 1913 law passed to enforce bans against interracial marriages to bar granting marriage licenses to gay couples from out of state who come here to marry. This law, which should have been stricken from the books years ago, wouldn’t pass constitutional muster if it were employed to ban out-of-state interracial heterosexual couples from marrying here. Gee, which side do you think Reilly and Romney would have been on just a few decades ago, when the nation was debating the issue of interracial marriage?

Fortunately, we’ve seen real leadership on this issue from ordinary state reps and senators — some of whom have made painful breaks with political colleagues, constituents, and even family members to support gay rights. We’d like to single out a few from Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville for special mention.

State Senator Marian Walsh of West Roxbury has voted against every proposed amendment that would amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage. The Catholic legislator has endured sharp criticism in her conservative district for her stance and will face at least one challenger in her bid for re-election because of her votes. On Monday, she spoke to the ConCon and acknowledged her personal discomfort with gay marriage, but said that votes on civil rights should not be based on one’s own comfort level. "Which constitutional right do you know you enjoy, do you want to give up?" she asked her fellow legislators. She added: "We must reach beyond our moral and emotional grasp. Then we become the nation we want to be."

State Representative Sal DiMasi of the North End is a member of the anti-gay-marriage House Speaker Tom Finneran’s leadership team. Yet he has voted against every amendment put forward that would ban gay couples from marrying. He joined other pro-gay-marriage legislators at a pro-gay rally after Monday’s ConCon and told the crowd that even though a marriage ban had been passed, the outcome was still a win for their side.

State Representative Marie St. Fleur of Dorchester pounded the podium during a speech Monday and invoked the example of her native Haiti to remind people of the freedoms we take for granted. At a pro-gay rally held after Monday’s vote, the Catholic St. Fleur admitted how difficult it was for her to overcome her own prejudices but said that if she could change, so could others.

State Representative Byron Rushing of the South End, an African-American who is an Episcopal minister, has been a powerful antidote to the anti-gay pronouncements of the Black Ministerial Alliance. He spoke forcefully on the floor of the ConCon on February 12. Of the black ministers who say gay marriage is not a civil-rights issue, he said, "They are telling us that black people, once they’ve gotten their civil rights, don’t have to share." He added: "Shame on you."

Like Rushing, State Senator Dianne Wilkerson of Roxbury has been a powerful voice countering those who say civil-marriage rights for lesbian and gay couples aren’t a civil-rights issue. She choked up during her speech February 11 when she told her colleagues: "I know the pain of being less than equal, and I cannot and will not impose that status on anyone else."

The impact that State Representative Liz Malia of Jamaica Plain, one of three openly gay lawmakers on Beacon Hill, would have on the debate was initially underestimated. On the first day of the ConCon, anti-gay-marriage activists admitted that they had failed to appreciate the influence that Malia’s personal example would have on her colleagues. This past Monday, she reminded lawmakers that what they ultimately voted on would affect her personally. "This is not about which word we choose to call it," she said. "This is about putting me and my family into a separate and unequal class."

Like Malia, State Senator Jarrett Barrios of Cambridge is openly gay. But his impact has been felt more as a legislative strategist working in concert with lobbyists like Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus co-chair Arline Isaacson. Their work obviously paid off. At Monday’s pro-gay rally, he noted that the maneuvering of the pro-gay-marriage side had forced State Representative Phil Travis, the author of the original anti-gay-marriage amendment who opposes granting any rights to gay couples, to vote in favor of a measure that would create civil unions.

Lastly, it’s been easy to take the support of State Representative Patricia Jehlen of Somerville, a reliably progressive vote on any social issue, for granted. But the lawmaker, who never spoke on the floor of the ConCon, brought herself and pro-gay activists to tears on Monday when she addressed them at the rally held after the vote. "People ask me how gay marriage will affect my marriage, well, it does," she said to the crowd, which grew silent as they waited for her to explain. "I’ve been married for 35 years and took it for granted."

Although legislators will now move on to other matters, it’s not too late to contact them about this issue. Call and thank those who’ve done the right thing. And continue to lobby those who haven’t. Contact House Speaker Tom Finneran’s office at (617) 727-3600. Contact Senate president Robert Travaglini’s office at (617) 722-1500. More important, call your local representative and senator; you can find complete listings, with contact information, on the Web at www.state.ma.us/legis/legis.htm

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com


Issue Date: April 2 - 8, 2004
Back to the News & Features table of contents
Click here for an archive of our past editorials.

  E-Mail This Article to a Friend
 









about the phoenix |  advertising info |  Webmaster |  work for us
Copyright © 2005 Phoenix Media/Communications Group