Massachusetts Same-Sex
Marriage Rights in Danger
By Joe
Auciello / May 2007 issue of
Socialist Action newspaper
BOSTON—In Massachusetts
the law that established the right of same-sex marriage is in peril. This
law resulted from a Mass.
Supreme Judicial Court decision and has been in
effect since 2004. Since then, more than 8000 couples have married, but the
court’s ruling remains highly controversial.
The
drive to place a referendum question on the 2008 ballot that would allow
for the overturn of the same-sex marriage law has continued to advance,
overcoming legal and legislative obstacles. Opponents of same-sex marriage
gathered more than 170,000 signatures in December 2005 as the first step to
erase the Supreme Judicial
Court decision.
Before
a referendum can be placed on the ballot in Massachusetts,
25% of the 200 representatives must vote in favor of the amendment in two
consecutive sessions of the state legislature.
In July
and November 2006, the legislature adjourned without considering the
anti-gay marriage petition. This tactic was intended to deflect the
referendum question and preserve the same-sex marriage law. Yet, two months
later, the legislature took its first vote, with 62 representatives in
favor.
A
public outcry from conservatives and liberals, united in the claim that the
people’s rights were being ignored, forced the legislators to confront the
issue they had hoped to side-step. The new leader of the state Senate has
promised lawmakers the all-important second opportunity for a vote on the
amendment in May. The decision by Senate President Theresa Murray, a
supporter of same-sex marriages, to schedule a vote in the upcoming
constitutional convention ultimately threatens the legal status of these
marriages.
Considering
how similar referenda have fared throughout the nation in recent years, the
prospects for an outcome of a referendum in Massachusetts
that favors the rights of gays and lesbians are not encouraging. In every
state in the country where there has been a vote on same-sex marriage, the
majority has voted against it. Most recently, in Wisconsin
last November, a referendum to define marriage as a union between a man and
a woman was passed by 59 percent of the voters.
A March
2007 Newsweek poll showed that a majority of
Americans oppose gay marriage. None of the leading Democratic candidates
support equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians; some, like John
Edwards and Barack Obama,
oppose same-sex marriage.
Yet,
there are positive signs nationally. The same Newsweek poll revealed a
majority supported the presence of gays in the military (in opposition to the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said that homosexuality is "immoral") and opposed President
Bush’s drive for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
In
April, Washington
state made civil unions legal, an important though partial reform. (Civil
unions are also legal in New Jersey, Connecticut,
and Vermont).
Currently, Massachusetts is the only
state in the U.S.
that allows same-sex marriage.
Advocates
of gay rights and same-sex marriage in Massachusetts
have pursued a strategy of selective lobbying to deny a vote on the
referendum. Yet, this strategy has failed. Step by step, the gay-rights
movement in Massachusetts
has been losing ground.
The Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court, since its 4-3 decision
in 2003, has been in steady retreat. In March 2006 this court upheld the
use of a 1913 law to forbid out-of-state gay couples from marrying in the
state. (The law was originally intended to prevent the marriage of
interracial couples). Four months later, the court unanimously ruled that a
proposed constitutional amendment to forbid gay marriage could proceed to
the legislature for their vote.
The
court was not compelled to reach this conclusion—quite the contrary. The
state constitution prohibits referendum questions that would reverse a judicial
decision. In a bizarre twist of logic, the court decided that the proposed
amendment to ban gay marriage would not reverse their 2003 decision but, if
approved, would instead establish a new law—a law to ban gay marriage!
Finally,
in December 2006, the Supreme
Judicial Court ruled that Mass.
legislators were duty-bound to vote on the proposed amendment to prohibit
same-sex marriage. Although the court did not have the authority to
force such a vote, their unanimous decision was a clear-cut setback for
gay-rights advocates.
Under
this pressure, liberal politicians began to buckle. The strategy of
parliamentary maneuvers by the legislature to avoid a vote was no longer
tenable.
In
response to the court ruling, the co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay
and Lesbian Political Caucus, Arline Isaacson,
said, "We know that if the legislature votes on the amendment, we will
lose this year and next year, and it will go
to the ballot, where it will likely pass" (Boston Globe, Dec. 28,
2006).
When,
in fact, legislators did vote and gay-rights supporters did lose, Ms.
Isaacson responded, "Our goal is to win this one on the merits of the
issue…. We would love to defeat this mean-spirited amendment by denying
them the 50 votes they need, and we are working very hard to do just
that" (Boston Globe, March 23, 2007).
Yet,
the real question is whether this goal can be achieved by no more than the
hard work of lobbying legislators who are caving in to the right wing—that
is, to the only forces who have been "acting up" loudly and
publicly.
What
has been lacking all along is a strategy to mobilize gay-rights activists
and their supporters in defense of same-sex
marriage. The gay-rights demonstrations of the 1970s and 1980s brought out
tens of thousands and, in some cities, hundreds of thousands. The same
possibility exists today and is just as urgently needed.
The
strategy of lobbying is relatively weak unless there is a force behind it,
a force that is united, visible, and strong. The strategy for
mass action would consolidate the base of gay rights advocates, would give
heart to the waverers and undecided, and would
win new support among a public that would get an opportunity to hear
gay-rights proponents.
People
have rights to the sexual life of their choice and to equality in marriage.
A political struggle can educate, inspire,
and mobilize around such a demand. Without such an approach, gay rights are
in danger.
|