E-Mail This Article to a Friend Courting disaster In a last-ditch effort, die-hard gay-marriage foes seek to oust the Supreme Judicial Court justices who decided Goodridge. But their extreme tactics could leave them in political isolation. BY KRISTEN LOMBARDI

CALL IT THE close of a chapter. For months now, a vocal and determined opposition has fought against civil-marriage rights for same-sex couples by using every tool at its disposal. They have yelled in protest, joined in letter-writing campaigns, and mounted last-ditch legal efforts to stay the start of court-sanctioned gay marriages in this state. Now, just 30 days after Massachusetts extended marital rights to same-sex couples on May 17, the opposition has grown conspicuously silent. Gone are the demonstrations and the action alerts. And while public opinion remains divided on the issue — the latest polling data from the University of Massachusetts show 45 percent of voters in favor of gay marriage and 38 percent opposed — no visible backlash has materialized since same-sex nuptials became an everyday occurrence last month. Even among the opposition, it seems, there are limits to how far people will go in the name of the anti-gay-marriage crusade.

Consider, if you will, the latest strategy among die-hard opponents: legislative pressure to remove the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) justices who ruled last November that barring same-sex couples from civil marriage was unconstitutional. On April 22, State Representative Emile Goguen — a Fitchburg Democrat opposed to any form of legal recognition for same-sex relationships — filed a "bill of address" seeking to oust the four SJC justices who issued the historic Goodridge v. Department of Public Health ruling. Within a month, on May 24, State Representative Philip Travis — the Rehoboth Democrat who has served as the face of the anti-gay-marriage camp on Beacon Hill — followed suit with another recall bill. This time, the measure takes aim exclusively at SJC chief justice Margaret Marshall, who penned the 50-page Goodridge ruling for the four-justice majority. Earlier this month, the two legislators renewed the recall-the-justices initiative at a June 1 State House press conference, during which they vowed to push the bills to the governor’s desk and on to the Governor’s Council, the seven-member body ultimately empowered to remove judges. Goguen released a five-count "indictment" against Marshall that purportedly lays out the case for her forced dismissal. The nine-page document accuses the chief justice of violating the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct by delivering a May 1999 speech to the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association on gay-discrimination protections in her native South Africa — and then failing to recuse herself from the Goodridge case four years later.

On the surface, removing the SJC justices — the very folks who made same-sex marriage in this state a reality — might seem like a natural goal for opponents. But despite attempts to keep the recall initiative alive, gay-marriage opponents on the Hill appear to have little appetite for it. Of the 45 or so staunchly anti-gay-marriage state representatives and senators, only a handful are willing to put their signatures on the two bills. Goguen, in fact, is the lone sponsor of the original bill, while the Travis measure has attracted just two House members as co-sponsors: James Miceli, of Wilmington, and Mark Carron, of Southbridge. If anything, the recall initiative’s failure to gain traction illustrates just how far the opposition will go to press the issue. It’s one thing to champion the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage; it’s quite another to try to take down the judges on the state’s high court. Observes Representative Michael Festa, a Melrose Democrat and a prominent gay-marriage backer: "This is a hard-core message pushed by hard-core people who just don’t want to accept the Goodridge decision. A lot of lawmakers, even those against gay marriage, cannot condone that sort of idea."

THE JUSTICE-RECALL initiative dates back to February, with the birth of the Article 8 Alliance, a Waltham-based group of gay-marriage opponents dedicated to the "swift passage of the bill of address, removal of the judges, and reversal of the illegal and illegitimate ruling." After months of futile lobbying on the Hill, Article 8 (the name refers to Article VIII of the Massachusetts Constitution’s Declaration of Rights, which establishes the people’s right to "cause their public officers to return to private life") eventually convinced Goguen to sponsor the original "bill of address," which calls for a resolution "to remove from office Margaret Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, and Roderick Ireland, John Greaney, and Judith Cowin, associate justices of said court." On April 22, Goguen unveiled his bill with fanfare at a 150-person rally at the State House organized by Article 8. Since then, the measure has been languishing in the House Rules Committee, which schedules proposed legislation for consideration.

Although Goguen characterizes his bill as "the only way we can address the Goodridge ruling," he concedes that many of his trusted anti-gay-marriage colleagues "felt this was going too far." "Some legislators talked to me about it and said, ‘Don’t you think you’re being too harsh?’ and I said, ‘No,’" he says. "They asked me what I thought of eliminating the other three [justices] and focusing on Marshall because she’s the one who spearheaded this thing." Thus, on May 24, Travis, the Rehoboth representative, filed the second bill to "remove from office Margaret Marshall," which Goguen says he has endorsed because "I’m willing to do whatever it takes to push this."

Facing yet another obstacle, the second recall bill concentrating solely on Marshall remains stuck in the House Rules Committee, although its sponsors consider it more politically feasible than its antecedent. Representative Miceli, one of the bill’s two co-sponsors, makes plain his belief that "asking the legislature to recall a group of SJC justices is a hard sell." By contrast, he sees the latest measure as having a chance of garnering support on the Hill. "This resolution has a shot — a long shot, but at least it has a shot," he says, as compared to "trying to turn the whole court upside down."

That Miceli and his three colleagues have taken on the recall initiative — a move that Miceli admits is "a drastic step" — comes as no surprise. All four lawmakers have aligned with the most die-hard gay-marriage opponents — indeed, they strongly reject not just civil-marriage rights for same-sex couples, but also civil unions. During the four-day constitutional convention earlier this year, they voted almost completely in line with the key opposition groups pushing for an amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage. They appeared as speakers at anti-gay-marriage rallies and signed on to last-minute lawsuits to try to stop the Goodridge ruling from taking effect on May 17. Currently, the four representatives are among 11 lawmakers who have filed a federal lawsuit against the SJC justices in the US First Circuit Court of Appeals, in Boston, arguing that the SJC overstepped its bounds by changing the traditional definition of marriage. In short, their attempt to go after the justices amounts to another way to keep the debate over the Goodridge decision alive.

In explaining why he’s sponsoring the Marshall-recall bill, Miceli reiterates the claim that he and the 10 other lawmakers make in their federal suit. "It’s the argument that’s been beaten to death, but it’s true," he says. "This issue falls within the purview of the legislature. This is a constitutional question, and I’m going to fight it to the bitter end."

Goguen makes a different point and puts it more bluntly: "I’m against gay marriage. I don’t think the next generation should have to confront this type of thing."