Related articles and links |  1 of 3

Evangelicals, catholics, and other proponents of heterosexual marriage in Massachusetts thought they had plenty of time to rally support. They tried to get a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage on the ballot in 2002 but were stalled by the commonwealth's legislature.

Still, they expected that as the Supreme Judicial Court considered the issue, it would defer to the voting process. It didn't.

Last November the sharply divided court ruled 4-3 in Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health that homosexual couples have a fundamental, constitutional right to obtain marriage licenses. In February, the court said legal recognition of civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage—as done in neighboring Vermont—would not suffice. The ruling, which essentially mandates gay marriage, is set to take effect on May 17.

There is a new sense of unity—and urgency—among defenders of marriage. Across Massachusetts, evangelicals and Catholics have organized rallies and meetings. A February 8 rally at Boston Common, organized by Your Catholic Voice and the Marriage Coalition to support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment, drew 2,000 to 3,000 people in bitter cold temperatures.

Defenders of marriage fear that if homosexuals are allowed to marry in Massachusetts, those couples could use the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution to demand that other states recognize their unions. Thirty-eight states have passed laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996 with strong bipartisan support, is designed to protect those laws. Some legal experts, however, say doma would not survive a constitutional challenge.

People on both sides of the debate see Massachusetts as a key legal battleground—even more than California, where in February the mayor of San Francisco ignored state law to hand out marriage licenses to homosexual couples, or New Mexico, where a county clerk began issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council (FRC) said in a statement, "It is quite clear that the tyranny of four judges in Massachusetts last November has left every state and county in this nation vulnerable to having same-sex 'marriages' forced upon them."

Under pressure from evangelicals, Catholics, and others, the Massachusetts legislature hastily convened in February to consider an amendment defining marriage as involving a man and a woman. Phil Travis, an evangelical Democrat who leads pro-family forces in the Massachusetts legislature, drew up the amendment.

After two days of debate, on February 12 the convention failed to pass an amendment, which would have gone to the voters for ratification in 2006 at the earliest.

The legislature reconvened in March, but the national debate is just getting started. National organizations such as FRC, Focus on the Family, and Concerned Women for America started gearing up last summer, and they were camped out in war rooms in Boston before and during the constitutional convention. They see many of the issues being played out on the Massachusetts stage as setting precedents.

The FRC has been particularly active. The conservative organization held a heavily attended press conference on February 9 to discuss the implications of allowing homosexuals to marry. The FRC attempted to hold a debate at Harvard with homosexual-rights activists, who chose at the last minute to focus their energy on the constitutional convention. The FRC also paid for a series of newspaper ads across the state asking, "Is Your State Legislator Denying You the Chance to Vote on Marriage?"

next page... |  1 of 3

April 2004, Vol. 48, No. 4