E-Mail This Article to a Friend Moving forward Pro-gay-marriage activists pull victory from defeat BY KRISTEN LOMBARDI

IT DIDN’T MAKE any sense. The Massachusetts legislature had just approved a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a heterosexual institution, yet close to 400 pro-gay-marriage activists were applauding and whistling wildly — as if the amendment had just been defeated.

The reason for their joy? Despite the loss, it was a close 105-to-92 vote (if just five more legislators had joined the pro-gay-marriage side, the amendment would have been defeated). Furthermore, as State Senator Jarrett Barrios of Cambridge pointed out to the spirited crowd after last Monday night’s vote, no one, "not the governor, not the House Speaker," could deny them the right to civil marriage come May 17. On that day, city and town clerks across Massachusetts will begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples thanks to the state’s Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) November 18 ruling that the current ban on such marriages is unconstitutional. "No matter what happened today," the senator said, "no one will take away our right to enter into the solemn contract of marriage."

Many of the same-sex-marriage supporters in the fiery crowd wore red circular stickers that read I SUPPORT THE SJC DECISION, as well as white round buttons that sarcastically proclaimed, HI! I’M A SECOND-CLASS GAY CITIZEN. They packed themselves into the State House’s ornate Nurse’s Hall for a pro-gay-marriage rally organized just minutes after the final vote had been taken. They spilled out onto two marble staircases leading to an upper floor, where dozens more hung over the balcony, waving rainbow-colored flags. As Barrios reminded crowd members that their right to marry remained intact, they erupted into a cacophony of wild, whistling applause. One spirited activist chimed in from the upper floor, "That’s right!" Still others wrapped their arms around their partners and hugged tight, their faces beaming. Witnessing the energy and optimism among the hundreds of activists last Monday night, you would not have known that opponents of civil-marriage rights for same-sex couples had just cleared the first of three hurdles on the way to banning gay and lesbian couples from marrying in the Commonwealth.

YET THAT’S exactly what had happened after 34 hours of intense debate — replete with career-making speeches and dizzying parliamentary moves — during a constitutional convention (ConCon) that spread out over four days: February 11 and 12, and March 11 and 29. On Monday, the legislature ended the discussion on same-sex marriage by passing an amendment to the state constitution that defines marriage as "only the union of one man and one woman." At the same time, the amendment creates civil unions that will offer same-sex couples "entirely the same benefits, protections, rights, privileges, and obligations as are afforded to married persons." Earlier that day, representatives and senators had modified the language to specify that same-sex couples will be "denied federal benefits available to married persons" as long as federal law continues to provide such benefits only to heterosexual couples.

Initial reaction to the vote by pro-gay-marriage advocates was much more negative. Around 6 p.m., after the roll call had been cast, Arline Isaacson, the co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus (MGLPC), stood before a thicket of media cameras, lights, and microphones with a stern expression on her face. As the crush of reporters swarmed around her, she took an audible breath. Then she acknowledged the "close vote" and said: "We want people to know that legislators have made a terrible mistake. Many of them are going to feel very ashamed of what they’ve done today."

Within seconds, Isaacson was joined by Mary Bonauto, the civil-rights project director of the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), who argued the Goodridge case that resulted in the SJC’s historic ruling last November. Bonauto’s cheeks reddened and her voice hardened as she spoke to reporters. "I have to admit," she said, "I’m really irritated." Referring to legislators who seem to believe that civil unions are a positive development for gay and lesbian couples, Bonauto said, "People who supposedly support the gay community are actually hurting the gay community."

But both Isaacson and Bonauto had changed their spin on the day’s events by the time they addressed the post-ConCon rally of pro-gay-marriage activists approximately half an hour later. When Bonauto assumed the center stage in Nurse’s Hall, she raised her fists in solidarity with the crowd. "In the end," she told the activists who cheered her on, "my long-term perspective is a good one."

And it’s true. The outlook for the pro-gay-marriage forces is good. Before it can go forward, the amendment must be approved by a second constitutional convention in the 2005-’06 legislative session. Considering that most observers believed that this ConCon would easily pass the anti-gay-marriage amendment sponsored by Rehoboth state representative Phil Travis, which would have outlawed even domestic-partnership benefits offered by private companies — and that support for that amendment evaporated almost instantly — Bonauto and others believe they are well-positioned to kill the gay-marriage-ban/civil-union amendment in the next legislative session. If it does pass, voters will be asked to approve the measure in November 2006. As Bonauto concluded in a rallying cry to the crowd: "We have not lost yet!"

Bonauto did share her irritation over the vote with the crowd, but it was clear from their behavior that most of the pro-gay-marriage activists felt little ambivalence about the day’s events. Paul Bibo, a 22-year-old Everett resident who stood smiling in the throng, echoed Barrios’s and Bonauto’s sense of optimism. When asked how he felt about the amendment, he replied, "I’m surprised, but hopeful. By next year, I still have great hope that this amendment will be defeated."