E-Mail This Article to a Friend Reality check Answering lies and half-truths in the gay-marriage debate

AS OF THIS writing, 184 days have passed since oral arguments were heard before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health. We don’t know when the SJC will rule in the case that, if decided for the plaintiffs, will give gay and lesbian couples the right to marry — only that the decision will come. Bruce Brock, a spokesman for the SJC, says that if the court has heard oral arguments in a case, it must issue a ruling. But there is no deadline. So it could come tomorrow. Or it could come two years from tomorrow. In other words, the court could, theoretically, wait until the legislature has sorted through the various pieces of legislation on the issue of gay marriage — including a measure that would amend the Massachusetts Constitution so as to bar marriages between same-sex couples. That said, even the most critical observers of the SJC don’t believe the court will engage in such a cowardly abdication of its duties.

But as we wait for the court’s ruling, it is becoming increasingly clear that winning the right to full marital equality for gay men and lesbians isn’t a battle that can be won in the court of law alone. It must also be fought in the court of public opinion. Even if the SJC rules in favor of the Goodridge plaintiffs, the battle will by no means be over.

Earlier in the week, House Speaker Tom Finneran gave an interview to the Associated Press in which he reiterated his vow to support a constitutional amendment banning marriages of same-sex couples in the event that the SJC allows gay men and lesbians the right to marry. It’s worth looking at Finneran’s comments closely, not just because he is the most powerful legislator on Beacon Hill, but also because his point of view is so typical of anti-gay advocates.

Finneran claimed that there is broad popular opposition to the state’s granting same-sex couples the right to marry. "Last year’s petitions speak to a fundamental concern and level of awareness that exists out there in the body politic," he told the AP. (Finneran did not return a phone call from the Phoenix for comment.) The Speaker, of course, was referring to the 76,000 signatures gathered in favor of a ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution so that same-sex marriages couldn’t be recognized in the Commonwealth. (The initiative died when former Senate president Tom Birmingham killed the bid to amend the constitution in a parliamentary move.) It’s worth remembering that the Attorney General’s Office received so many complaints about bait-and-switch tactics employed by the firm hired to gather signatures in favor of the anti-gay ballot initiative that it issued an advisory to the public to read any petition before signing it. (See "Speaking Truth to the Homophobic Right," This Just In, November 22, 2001.) So to claim that the petitions reflect public opinion is simply misleading. Finneran’s comments also reveal a willful ignorance of a Boston Globe/WBZ-TV poll released in April, which showed a slim majority of Bay State residents — 50 percent — favor granting marital rights to gay couples, as compared to 44 percent opposed.

Finneran also talked about what happened in Hawaii when that state’s high court ruled that it was illegal under the state constitution to prevent gay couples from marrying. After the ruling, the public supported a measure amending the constitution to make such marriages illegal. "Now the debate comes to Massachusetts," he said to the AP — as if nothing’s happened in the meantime. Quite the opposite, of course, is true. Vermont now recognizes gay and lesbian relationships through marriage-like civil unions. Two provinces in Canada now recognize marriages of same-sex couples, and the Canadian parliament is well on its way toward amending federal law to make such marriages legal throughout the country. The US Supreme Court this summer struck down laws banning sex between gay people, in a ruling that undercut the legal foundation of nearly all anti-gay laws and policies in place throughout the US. (In a near-hysterical dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia predicted that the ruling would bring about the legalization of "homosexual unions.") A lawsuit very similar to the one filed in Massachusetts has been filed in New Jersey; proponents are optimistic about its chances of success. In short, between the Hawaii case and today, the entire landscape of public opinion and jurisprudence concerning gay and lesbian people has shifted from one of intolerance toward one of acceptance.

Finally, Finneran referenced California gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger’s opposition to marriages of same-sex couples: "California is known for usually being in the vanguard of social conditions," Finneran said. "But Schwarzenegger himself said nothing doing on this issue of gay marriage." Maybe that would mean something if Schwarzenegger were actually leading the polls in the race to replace California governor Gray Davis, or if we all took our cues on social issues from Republican movie stars. Fortunately, neither case is true. California lieutenant governor Cruz Bustamante is leading the polls, and Bustamante favors civil unions. Meanwhile, the California state Senate last week passed a civil-unions-like measure that Governor Gray Davis is expected to sign after the version of the bill passed by the Senate is merged with another version passed by the California Assembly this summer. So if California is in the "vanguard of social conditions," the message it’s sending is loud and clear: offering legal security and benefits to gay families is the right thing to do.

Proponents of full marital equality for gay and lesbian families, such as State Senators Cheryl Jacques and Jarrett Barrios and State Representative Paul Demakis, say they are confident that the battle to block an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment is one that can be won. Though Barrios offers up this caution: "While Mr. Finneran doesn’t speak for the whole legislature, his effort must be taken seriously, and fair-minded people must be prepared to work hard to oppose efforts to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot."

This is one issue about which voters can’t contact their state representatives and senators too often. Whenever a public official like Finneran speaks out on the issue of marriage rights for gay couples, his twists of the truth and his anti-gay bigotry must be answered. You can contact Finneran’s office at (617) 727-3600. Contact Senate president Robert Travaglini’s office (which didn’t return two phone calls from the Phoenix about this issue) at (617) 722-1500. More important, call your local representative and senator and register your opinion; you can find a complete listing on the Web at www.state.ma.us/legis/legis.htm.

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