E-Mail This Article to a Friend BEACON HILL Marriage debate heats up BY KRISTEN LOMBARDI

For months now, people across the country have waited for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to issue its much-anticipated ruling in the marriage-rights case known as Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health. As we all know, the landmark lawsuit, in which seven same-sex couples have petitioned the state for the right to wed, could make the Bay State the first in the country to recognize the civil marriages of gay and lesbian couples.

But pro-marriage advocates in this state aren’t just banking on success before the state’s highest court. Indeed, they and their legislative supporters are pushing for a measure that would allow same-sex couples to marry — and thus render moot the Goodridge case. The proposal, known as House Bill 3677, reads simply enough: "Any person [who meets all the requirements of civil marriage] may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender." If enacted, it would give homosexual couples the exact same things heterosexual couples get once they marry — some 350 benefits granted under state law. Gay men and lesbians who tie the knot would receive everything from basic next-of-kin rights to the right to arrange their spouse’s funeral to parental guardianship. (The bill would have no bearing on an additional 1049 benefits granted under federal law.)

Winning the right to marry would garner gay and lesbian couples "the right to protect their families," says Josh Friedes, of the Freedom To Marry Coalition of Massachusetts, which is one of 13 gay-rights, civil-rights, and religious groups currently advocating passage of House Bill 3677.

This week, Friedes and dozens of activists are descending upon the State House for an October 22 rally and an October 23 public hearing on the measure. The hearing, scheduled before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary at 11 a.m. in Room A-1, marks the first time advocates of same-sex marriage have been able to come to Beacon Hill to promote gay and lesbian relationships, rather than to defend them. Ever since 1999, one piece of legislation after another has been filed to outlaw gay marriage. At present, a pending constitutional amendment would seek to change the Massachusetts Constitution not only to limit civil marriage to one man and one woman, but also to deny any legal recognition of gay couples via civil unions or domestic partnerships.

As of earlier this week, more than 125 people had already submitted letters to the Judiciary Committee expressing support for House Bill 3677, which is sponsored by State Representative Byron Rushing (D-South End). Another 100 or so were expected to turn out on Thursday morning to testify. Many of them are people who’ve ended up broke because they weren’t able to get survivor benefits when their partner died. Or who’ve experienced profound distress because they weren’t able to make medical decisions for sick partners. Or who must tote around reams of documentation — the health-care proxy, the power of attorney — to gain some semblance of the legal protections heterosexual couples have. Many of them, too, are straight people who have gay and lesbian siblings, children, friends, and co-workers.

"What’s interesting to me is the support from straight people," Friedes says. When he first got involved in gay-rights activism seven years ago, gay marriage was seen as a radical issue that would only benefit gay men and lesbians. Now, it’s viewed as a mainstream, civil-rights battle that is concerned with helping families. Even the historically unreceptive legislature is engaging in what Friedes calls "serious dialogue" about gay marriage these days — a ripple effect, he says, of the Goodridge case.

Friedes and his colleagues are convinced that the average Massachusetts resident supports gay marriage, but keeps quiet about it for fear of offending the neighbors. "If people talked about this issue openly," he says, "they’d find the support out there is very widespread." To wit: a Boston Globe/WBZ-TV poll released last spring showed the state evenly divided on the issue of granting marriage rights to same-sex couples.

Let’s hope that Thursday’s hearing becomes another indicator.