E-Mail This Article to a Friend Déjà vu all over again The gay-marriage debate heats up again as the Con Con returns to Beacon Hill
	Related Links MassEquality Freedom to Marry Coalition Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry Pro-gay-marriage organizations in the state work under the umbrella coalition of MassEquality, which has developed regional affiliates all over the state. If you want to be part of the action in the weeks leading up to the Con Con, or you simply want to learn more about the history of the gay-marriage debate, visit any of the above Web sites. Massachusetts Family Institute http://www.voteonmarriage.org/ MFI’s 2008 ballot initiative alters the gay-marriage landscape as we move toward the Con Con. Plus, keep an eye on how things change now that former MFI president Ron Crews has left the state to become an Army Reserve chaplain in Kentucky. Boston Phoenix gay-marriage coverage The Phoenix has followed this debate closely from the very beginning. Check out what we’ve had to say about it.

When pro- and anti-gay-marriage forces descend on Beacon Hill this month in preparation for September 14’s Massachusetts Constitutional Convention (Con Con), the scene may seem eerily familiar. You’ll see the same faces, the same arguments, the same offensive hate speech you did at last year’s Con Con, in March 2004, where hundreds of activists spent three separate days chanting, praying, and singing at the State House. But one thing will be drastically different — this time around, legislators won’t be debating a hypothetical scenario.

Since May 2004, gay and lesbian couples — more than 6500 to date — have tied the knot legally in Massachusetts, the result of a 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision that same-sex couples have just as much right to marry as heteros.

Now, state lawmakers will debate whether to take that right away.

PUT IT IN WRITING

After a monumental fight at the 2004 Con Con, the legislature voted 105-92 for a compromise amendment (proposed at the last minute by Senate president Robert Travaglini and Senate minority leader Brian Lees) that would ban gay marriage while establishing civil unions. It was a blow to same-sex-marriage supporters, who consider civil unions not only separate, but unequal. If the same amendment passes this year’s Con Con, it will appear on the 2006 ballot, where voters will decide the fate of gay marriage in Massachusetts.

Pro-marriage advocates had been pushing this year for a late-November Con Con and were dealt a setback last week when Travaglini announced the September 14 date. Lamenting the timing, Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus co-chair Arline Isaacson goes far enough to say that if she "were advising our opponents, I would have requested September 14 for a date. It’s a make-their-day scenario."

That’s because with less than three weeks to prepare, equal-marriage supporters are worried that they don’t have enough time to finalize and secure the 101 votes needed to defeat the Travaglini-Lees amendment, especially when legislators are either on vacation or "just coming back from the slow summer season," says MassEquality political director Marc Solomon.

Nevertheless, equal-marriage supporters have been working hard this spring and summer to defeat the amendment. Judging from recent announcements from legislators (such as representatives Anthony Petrucelli [D-Boston], Vincent Pedone [D-Worcester], and James Leary [D-Worcester]) who have decided to switch positions and vote against the amendment, their grassroots organizing is making a difference. Solomon cites the efforts of married same-sex couples — some of whom have visited their legislators, invited them into their homes, and shared their personal stories — as well as straight allies, who have contacted their legislators to demonstrate broad-based support.

If their efforts succeed in dooming the Travaglini-Lees amendment, gay-rights supporters will be in the clear — at least until 2008, when a harsher amendment could swing into action.

ALL EYES ON REILLY

In a predictably bizarre political twist, some gay-marriage opponents are also fighting for the defeat of Travaglini-Lees. Because they oppose civil unions as much as gay marriage, organizations such as the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) and the Massachusetts Catholic Coaltion are encouraging conservative legislators to vote against the amendment at September’s Con Con. In its place, they’re pushing the Protection of Marriage Amendment, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and does not establish civil unions.

If their strategy works, it will be an exercise in long-term gratification. The Protection of Marriage Amendment — conceived by the MFI, and backed by Governor Mitt Romney — wouldn’t go before voters until 2008. The amendment comes in the form of an "initiative petition," which requires that 66,000 citizen signatures go to the legislature next year. Once it reaches the State House, it needs to pass through two consecutive legislative sessions with only 51 votes to get on the ballot in 2008 (as opposed to the Travaglini-Lees amendment, which requires 101 votes).

To go forward, the petition needs to be certified by Attorney General (and Democratic gubernatorial candidate) Thomas Reilly. Reilly’s decision of whether to approve the amendment will come down by next Wednesday and is sure to start a chain reaction leading up to September 14’s Con Con.

Lawyers and law professors, along with the Bay State legal-advocacy group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), have filed briefs with the attorney general’s office, stating that MFI’s proposed ballot initiative is unconstitutional because state law prohibits petitions that would overturn a judicial decision, and because it is so similar to an initiative that failed in 2002. In addition, the gay-rights coalition MassEquality claims the initiative would violate the US equal-protection clause, because it would create three separate classes of citizens: heterosexuals who can marry, homosexuals who married before the ban (MFI’s amendment would leave these marriages intact), and homosexuals who are unable to marry after the measure is implemented.

"We believe that it is so legally imperative that the petition should not be certified that we think Reilly doesn’t have a choice," Isaacson says.

Yet if same-sex marriage supporters get their way, and Reilly denies certification for the Protection of Marriage Amendment, they still could find themselves in immediate danger on September 14 at the Con Con.

Why? In part, to defeat the Travaglini-Lees amendment, the pro-gay-marriage side has depended on the "no" votes of those who oppose both marriage and civil unions. It’s unclear how many legislators would revert to Travaglini-Lees as a last resort if they didn’t have the hope of total victory in 2008 to fall back on.

"If he decides not to certify the petition, it might affect the votes of some legislators," admits Isaacson, who is lobbying at the State House to determine just how many legislators might vote for Travaglini-Lees if they don’t have the option of holding out for the harsher Protection of Marriage Amendment. Meanwhile, she says, "we never felt like we could depend on the votes of our opponents to help us win."

MFI president Kris Mineau is staying mum about whether they will alter their strategy based on Reilly’s decision.

Or, as Josh Friedes of the Freedom to Marry Coalition puts it: "In respect to the current amendment, it’s not only a question of winning, but how we win."

As we wait for Reilly’s decision, and prepare for the Con Con, it’s worth noting a few other changes in the gay-marriage landscape. Recent public-opinion polls show that the majority of Massachusetts residents support gay marriage. Progressive politicians won sweeping victories in the November and March 2005 elections, putting a total of four additional votes in the pro-equality column. (See "Silver Linings," This Just In, November 4, 2004, and "Gaining Ground," News and Features, March 18).

One of the new votes is Brighton’s special-election victor, everyman Mike Moran, who may be recruited to help corral fence-sitters with his tough-guy-liberal persona.

"It’s just my gut feeling — we’ve had this for the law of the land now for a year, and the world didn’t end," Moran says. "To take it away wouldn’t be right."

To access links related to this article, read it online at BostonPhoenix.com. Deirdre Fulton can be reached at dfulton[a]phx.com.