As it’s simple IF you ignore the complexity noted, the Massachusetts General Court, convened in Constitutional Convention, yesterday defeated a proposed constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage and creat Civil Unions by a vote of 157-39. So, marriage equality in Masachusetts is safe….for the time being.
The defeat of this amendment was caused by four interrelated factors. The first is electoral politics. In the general election last fall, every single marriage equality supporter who ran won re-election, while a couple of marriage equality opponents lost. Additionally, our supporters have won a few special elections since the general. Not only did we pick up votes via elections, but those elections also showed people who were closet supporters of marriage equality that a backlash for such a vote was unlikely. The legislature itself is different than it was during the 2004 ConCon:
“Eighteen months ago we had 84 solid pro-equality votes. Today we have 115. That is quite a transformation in the Commonwealth, and it’s only going to get better,” said Solomon.
Second, marriage equality supporters organized and acted even when the issue wasn’t on the front pages:
The couples have tried to meet with lawmakers face to face to make their case. Activists have also relied on friends, family members and co-workers to make the case that same-sex marriage helps society as a whole.
“We’ve always known that we would succeed if gay and lesbian families came out of the closet and we were able to put a human face on the issue,” said Josh Friedes of the Freedom to Marry Coalition. “It’s transformative the experience of legislators meeting with couples.”
To drive home the point, the group MassEquality produced a book profiling recently wed gay couples. The book, distributed to lawmakers, also includes photos of beaming couples cutting wedding cakes, locking lips and hoisting their children on their shoulders.
Joe and Stan McCoy are one of those couples. The two married May 22 last year and have met with lawmakers to urge them to reject any ban on same-sex marriage.
In the spring, the Easthampton couple and other gay couples met with their state Sen. Michael R. Knapik, R-Westfield, who voted in favor of the ban last year.
“I think it was very profound for him to meet these families and hear their stories,” said Joe McCoy, 46. “It’s just so easy to think about gay and lesbians as a group, but when you start to see that they have the same concerns about their families, it emphasizes the similarities versus the differences.”
An aide to Knapik said he now plans to vote against the ban.
Our life stories are one of the most effective tools queer folks bring to debates over gay issues.
Time and experience have been a third factor. Over 6000 same-sex couples have now wed in Massachusetts. It’s not a hypothetical situatin in this state, it’s a reality, and that has had effects, on the state and its politicians:
House Speaker Sal DiMasi put it another way:
Additionally, as I noted on the anniversary of the first marriages in the Bay State, a poll (pdf) conducted by MassEquality found that:
- Massachusetts residents support allowing gay couples to marry by a 62-35 margin.
- Thirty-six percent believe marriage equality has improved the quality of life in Massachusetts, while 13% believe it has made the state worse.
- Fifty-six percent of the Bay State’s residents are proud of our first-in-the-nation status.
The trends are on our side!
Finally, and this brings me to the “looking ahead” side of things, opponents of marriage equality withdrew their support from yesterday’s amendment. The only real affect of that withdrawal yesterday was making the vote more lopsided (again, we had enough votes to kill it).
Marriage equality opponents came out against this amendment, which they supported last year, because they are trying to push through a different amendment which would ban same-sex marriage without creating civil unions.
Here’s hot that process will play out:
- Sponsors of the amendment will need to gather around 66,000 signatures to bring the amendment before the General Court. Signature gathering is beginning this month and will end in November.
- If they gather the requisite signatures, the amendment must be approved by two consecutive legislatures. A major issue, though, is that rather than the 101 votes required to pass a legislatively initatied amendment, a citizen-petition amendment requires 50 votes in both of those sessions to move to the ballot.
- If they amendment passes those two consecutive legislatures, it will appear on the 2008 ballot.
I can’t remember which article it’s in, but supporters of this new amendment believe they have 60 votes, enough to ensure that same-sex marriage will be a campaign issue in 2008, if nothing changes.
This new amendment may still be killed by the Courts. GLAD has challenge Attorney General Reilly’s certification of the amendment. (The GLAD site’s top story has links to legal memos they filed with Reilly arguing against his certification of the amendment.) Reilly may have kissed the gay vote goodby for his gubanatorial campaign.
If the courts reject GLAD’s challenge, we already know when the first vote on the amendment will take place. The Legislature has set the date for it’s next meeting as Constitutional Convention as May 10, 2006.
Our opponents are also trying out a new strategy; they’re trying to find an alternative way to grant marriage benefits to gay couples, among others:
State Representative Philip Travis, a Rehoboth Democrat and a leading opponent of same-sex marriage in the Legislature, said yesterday that he will file a bill this session to grant ”reciprocal benefits” to gay couples and those who cannot marry legally in Massachusetts.
Travis and other opponents of same-sex marriage discussed the bill on the eve of today’s Constitutional Convention, when lawmakers will take up a proposed amendment for the 2006 ballot that would ban same-sex marriage but allow gay couples to join in civil unions. That amendment is expected to fail, but gay-marriage opponents are now focusing their attention on a proposal to ban same-sex marriage, without the alternative of civil unions, aimed for the 2008 ballot.
Travis said the reciprocal benefits bill is meant to respond to supporters of same-sex marriage, who contend that a ban on marriage would take away rights from gay couples. ”All the things that the other side has complained about will be taken away and will be covered by legislative action,” Travis said.
This way, they’ll be able to say, “See, they’ll still have this rights if our amendment passes.”
I’m actually torn on this new legislation. I do recognize that it’s a cynical ploy to tear support away from full marriage equality, to cloud the issues for upcoming campaigns. However, it would also extend real material benefits for those currently not eligible. I’m in favor of a menu of options, as opposed to the one-size-fits-all approach of marriage only, so I sort of support it. The cynicism behind it, and the use to which our opponents will put it, and the fact that it’s legislative and could be repealed at any time–and don’t think lots of folks won’t try to do so, at least as it concerns queer folks–make me wary of supporting it. And that’s part of their point–if they can get gay folks to come out against the provision of benefits to others, they can make us appear selfish, concerned only with ourselves, and drive a wedge between marriage equality supporters.
As I said above, time has been our ally. In the long term, I’m optimistic about retaining marriage equality in Massachusetts. Three more years of same-sex couples marrying will have an effect on the state. Because we haven’t seen the kinds of social calamity resulting from this, the fear-based arguments against it will likely be less effective.
However, it will be ugly. The right hates the fact that Massachusetts allows same-sex couples to marry. They’re going to throw everything they have at us. Anti-gay rhetoric will be ramped up, and anti-gay violence will likely increase (it almost always does when gay issues are the subject of political controversy). Gay folks will continue to be subject to humiliating debates over whether or not we’re entitled to the full rights of citizenship, indeed, whether we’re full human. While I honestly believe we can kill the amendment in 2008, I don’t want to face it.
We won yesterday. We won big. It’s going to take more work, however, to keep that victory. So, if you want to help us keep this victory, please consider contributing to the folks doing the organizing and legal and legislative work (links to donation page):
Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) is the legal organization that has been doing amazing work in New England. These are the folks that brought Baker v. State, resulting in Civil Unions in Vermont, and Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, resulting in marriage equality in Massachusetts. They are also currently challenging the infamous “1913 Law” that Reilly and Governor Willard Romney (R-UT) have been using to keep out of state couples from marrying, and are pursuing full marriage equality through the Connecticut Courts.
MassEquality are the folks who have been doing much of the grassroots organizing. They’ve been doing incredible work, putting people in touch with legislators, assisting with electoral campaigns, developing media, lobbying….
There’s work yet to be done.
[Crossposted at CultureKitchen and DailyKos.]