Love, money, and the T

Notes from Beacon Hill on religious homophobia, campaign-finance high jinks, and an outburst of subway sanity

Back when Cardinal William O'Connell was in his prime, in the early part of this century, Massachusetts state legislators used to warn darkly of needing to check with "Number One" before taking action on issues of interest to the Catholic Church.

Those days should be long gone. They're not. The parade of conservative religious figures -- including Cardinal Bernard Law -- who sent a message to lawmakers this week that lesbians and gay men should be denied the full range of their humanity was reminiscent of an earlier, meaner era.

Religious conservatives testified in favor of House Bill 472, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which would emulate similar laws at the federal level and in 29 states that prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages. If the bill passes, Massachusetts would refuse to honor gay marriages even if other states (Hawaii and Vermont may be on the verge) legalize such unions. Governor Paul Cellucci, once thought to be friendly to gay and lesbian issues, has said publicly that he opposes gay marriage.

It's bad enough that the bill would perpetuate discrimination against gay and lesbian couples. What's worse is that Law and company are acting on what is essentially a religious agenda, trampling on the constitutional separation of religion and state. Nor should anyone construe those who are pushing the bill as speaking for all religious people. Nearly 200 clergy and religious activists -- not just religious liberals such as Unitarian Universalists and Congregationalists but also Catholics, Baptists, and Jews -- have endorsed the right of lesbians and gays to marry.

The forces of homophobia have promised an all-out campaign. To learn how you can fight back, see the Freedom To Marry Coalition's Web site, at www.ftmmass.org.

Tainted process

The brazenness with which politicians continue to embrace special-interest money is depressing.

Texas governor George W. Bush is raising so much cash for his presidential campaign ($13 million so far) that some of his advisers are reportedly hoping he'll opt out of public funding -- and thus, like Steve Forbes, avoid having to disclose the identity of his well-connected benefactors.

Vice President Al Gore, no stranger to fundraising controversies, has named as his campaign chairman Tony Coelho, who resigned from Congress after getting ensnared in the savings-and-loan scandal of the late 1980s.

In Massachusetts, House Speaker Tom Finneran took $10,000 in contributions from Fleet Bank executives not long after sticking the knife in a pro-consumer bill that would have prevented Fleet and other banks from whacking ATM users with additional fees.

What's even more depressing is the disrespect Finneran's House last week showed to voters who wish to clean up this mess.

To its credit, the House approved $10 million as a down payment to fund the "Clean Elections" referendum, passed overwhelmingly last November, which would set up a public-financing system for state candidates who agree to abide by strict spending limits.

But the members, in a late-night Friday session, perverted the public's intent by rushing through two dubious amendments. One would ask voters, through a ballot question, whether they really, truly, cross-their-hearts meant it when they approved of public funding last fall. The other would hold future funding hostage to the outcome of an ill-defined feasibility study.

The bill now moves to the Senate, where President Tom Birmingham has offered his qualified support for the intent of the referendum. Birmingham should push for full funding and work out any reservations he has with the original measure's proponents, rather than attempt -- as Finneran did -- to sentence it to death by amendment.

Late nights on the T

Sometimes the legislature even gets it right. That was surely the case last week, when the Committee on Transportation directed the MBTA to develop a pilot program for late-night T service on weekends. Starting in 2000, the T would shut down at 2:30 a.m. rather than at 1 a.m. on Friday and Saturday nights (see "Last Call," News and Features).

That's a good first step. But the legislature should insist that the T move aggressively toward permanent late-night service, as the Phoenix first advocated nearly a year and a half ago. The opposing argument advanced by MBTA officials -- that such service would cut into time now set aside for rail maintenance -- is a false one: T managers are already planning to run buses rather than subway cars during the late shift, because of safety as well as maintenance concerns.

Bostonians -- students and residents, visitors and natives -- should be able to take advantage of the city's increasingly vibrant nightlife without worrying about being stranded.

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