Sunday, June 30, 2002

By Pamela H. Sacks

Telegram & Gazette Staff

Legalizing gay marriage in Massachusetts is not even on Arline Isaacson's radar screen.

     Instead, Ms. Isaacson and her colleagues at MassEquality.org are focusing their efforts on a rear-guard action to stop a ballot initiative that would restrict the right to marry in Massachusetts to heterosexual couples.

     One thing is certain: Massachusetts is no Vermont. There, gay couples can enter into civil unions that resemble marriage. Here, the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus has been seeking enactment of a modest domestic partnership health benefits bill for 10 years. It has yet to pass.

     When we filed the bill in 1991-92, we knew that the first five years would be spent doing consciousness raising, trying to prove to people that we're not bad people, that we would be treated equally under the law, said Ms. Isaacson, who is co-chairman of the caucus. They had to come to understand, even if you don't like us, that's no reason to deny health insurance coverage.

     The proponents of the ballot question, which would amend the state Constitution, maintain that they seek only to define marriage as between one man and one woman, and that they take no stand on civil union or partnership rights.

     We only say they shouldn't be elevated to the same level as marriage, said spokesman James Lafferty. Marriage is a pretty unique institution.

     The proposed amendment does far more than put marriage off limits to gays, said Ms. Isaacson, who pointed to the measure's second sentence: Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent, nor shall it receive the benefits or incidents exclusive to marriage from The Commonwealth, its agencies, departments, authorities, commissions, offices, officials and political subdivisions.

      That sentence, she said, would effectively wipe out the right of domestic partners to receive health insurance, bereavement leave, medical leave, hospital visitation and survivor benefits.

     They crafted the wording brilliantly, Ms. Isaacson said. It is artfully worded to obfuscate the true intent and true meaning. It's extraordinary.

     The Legislature's Joint Public Service Committee held more than seven hours of hearings on the initiative petition in the spring and voted 15-0 to recommend against its adoption. The committee issued a report in late April stating that the language would deny present and potential benefits and protections to thousands of citizens ...

     A constitutional amendment that bars a segment of society from enjoying the rights and privileges afforded to others is discrimination, the report states. Discrimination sanctioned under law is wrong and unacceptable. In addition, it raises issues under the United States Constitution.

     Recently, gubernatorial candidate Robert B. Reich, a Democrat and former U.S. labor secretary, took even gay rights advocates by surprise when he announced that he supports gay marriage, saying that he became convinced that it's a civil rights issue and it was important to make a stand.

     I certainly didn't expect it, but it makes a lot of political sense, Ms. Isaacson said.

     The other four Democratic candidates support Vermont-style civil unions, which provide most of the legal benefits of marriage, but are not recognized by other states. Republican Mitt Romney backs domestic partnership laws that would give gay couples health benefits and survivorship rights. Green Party candidate Jill Stein and Libertarian candidate Carla Howell, like Mr. Reich, support marriage for gays.

     While the candidates for governor may be in the vanguard, Ms. Isaacson and Mr. Lafferty said they know that, fundamentally, Massachusetts residents tend to be socially conservative.

     Indeed, most states are far from resolving the issue. Partnership rights are in dispute in many state capitals. Last week, the national gay-rights group Lambda Legal announced it would file a lawsuit in New Jersey on behalf of seven same-sex couples who have been denied marriage licenses. Lambda's lawyers will argue that the denial is in violation of the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection.

     Both Ms. Isaacson and Mr. Laffery said they are gearing up for a long and bitter fight.

     The contest broke into open warfare earlier this month when Senate President Thomas F. Birmingham, a Democratic candidate for governor, quickly adjourned a constitutional convention without allowing a vote on what opponents call the anti-gay ballot initiative, saying legislators needed more time to study the issue. The support of 25 percent of the House and Senate members for two successive years is required to place the question on the ballot and backers are aiming for the 2004 election.

     Advocates of the gay marriage ban, watching from the House gallery, erupted in jeers and shouted demands for a vote. The next session will be July 17, and Mr. Lafferty said that until then his group will dog Mr. Birmingham's steps on the campaign trail, creating as much pressure on him as they can.

     At the Statehouse that day, we had buses from all over the state, Mr. Lafferty said. We fully expect to have five to 10 times that number of people at the next vote.

     Gay rights advocates, meanwhile, are gathering their forces. MassEquality.org was formed for the sole purpose of defeating the ballot question. But Ms. Isaacson is not necessarily optimistic about the outcome.