THE FRONTLINES OF GAY MARRIAGE IN MA.
by Whitney Weiss


Something huge is happening in Massachusetts and it’s not getting nearly the amount of accurate coverage it should. Since I happen to live in Boston and am literally in the midst of the entire happening, I am going to let you know what’s really going on, why it’s such a big deal, and how it’s different than what you might be seeing on Fox or CNN.

The history
This year, the Massachusetts State Supreme Court ruled that it’s unconstitutional not to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. Since then, our governor Mitt Romney has been published in The Wall Street Journal urging other states to amend their constitutions so they don’t have to deal with situations like ours. The Massachusetts Supreme Court made sure to clarify that civil unions would not satisfy the requirement, and "separate but equal" went out of style with Brown v. the Board of Education. Regardless of this, key members of Massachusetts’s government, as well as some well-financed special interest groups, are trying to get in the way of the progress.

How did the Supreme Court even end up talking about this? A lesbian couple, the Goodridges, sued for equality because of a very traumatizing hospital experience where one partner’s delivery went wrong and the other could not get access to see her or their child. The court saw their case and decided that such discrimination is unconstitutional. The court went out of their way to state that separate but equal would not work. Enter Thomas Finneran, speaker of the house here in Massachusetts and a man bent on ignoring the court’s decision. Finneran is quickly being called a modern day George Wallace by same-sex rights advocates. Despite the court’s ruling and specifications, Finneran is the man responsible for the initial idea of introducing an amendment to the state constitution (though everyone is sure that Romney played a large part).

This would mean a lot in Massachusetts, the state whose constitution was adopted for our country’s constitution. It would be the first time the constitution would ever be amended to take rights away from people. What Finneran’s amendments—because as one is defeated, another is introduced—would do is define marriage as an institution between a man and a woman.

The response
Imagine Boston and the rest of Massachusetts when they hear this. The state with both an openly gay and openly lesbian senator; the state that is conservative when it comes to spending but quite liberal when it comes to civil rights.

My dorm is within walking distance of the State House. The week that the politicians were set to convene and discuss and eventually vote, everything in Boston changed forever, and the media did not give it enough attention.

The street in front of the State House was literally packed for three days straight with people of literally all sizes, shapes, genders, and colors. Most importantly, you had people of different sexual orientations. This was not a pride parade where everyone looks happy and it’s about fun, not politics. This was a civil rights movement exploding right there on the state steps, eventually filing into the building and not leaving for 48 hours.

I made my way across the street and noticed the few people who had signs talking about the people, and letting the people vote. An important aspect of this whole amendment process is the fact that even if it passed, it would not go on the ballot until 2006. The Supreme Court has decided that same sex marriage licenses will be issued starting on May 17. It is unconstitutional to take away rights retroactively, so imagine what is going to happen in 2006 if some version of the Finneran amendment passes and there are thousands of married gay and lesbian couples. For example, the first weekend in San Francisco when the mayor told city hall to allow same-sex marriage, over a thousand people were married. That is a single weekend, and is an important practice of civil disobedience. There is a Defense of Marriage Act in the California State Constitution. Here in Boston, there is a Supreme Court giving the people the OK.

It appeared that people on the street understood this; that is why they were there. I spoke with an 86 year old woman who was braving the 20-degree weather with a sign. She thought it was important to give all people rights. I spoke with a middle-aged African American woman. She was heterosexual and felt that it was not right to sit back; she wanted to fight for same-sex couple rights how people had fought for her rights as an African-American. I spoke with college-age people, with same-sex couples who had been committed for years longer than Britney Spears and Jason Alexander’s sacred marriage lasted. I spoke to gays, straights, bisexuals. There were lawyers and doctors. It was seriously diverse.

Though the presence on the street and the reaction it was getting was excellent and positive towards the civil rights, a woman from MassEquality said that inside the state house, opponents were kneeling and praying, as well as screaming "let the people vote." One of the main arguments against putting it on the ballot is that the people did not vote for many important civil rights decisions. Another is the fact that if you look at the numbers, 54% of Massachusetts citizens do not want to amend their constitution to take away people’s rights, according to polls at the time.

I got with a group who entered the State House, and we were met with one of the most disturbing sights of my adult life. A middle-aged man was forcing his 10-year-old daughter and 8 year old son to kneel and pray while holding signs that defined marriage. The daughter had "marriage = one man + one woman" and the boy had a sign that said, "let the people vote." One of the men with me said "But he can’t vote; he’s 8." A photographer with the Associated Press was snapping pictures of these children left and right. One outspoken resident of Somerville I was with started talking to the father, asking him why he was exploiting his children and teaching them to hate. She said that she planned on teaching her children love. The daughter at this point started sobbing and ran into her father’s arms. He asked the photographer if he had enough shots and then, only after being assured that his daughter needn’t pose any longer, comforted her.

I did not see anyone in favor of same-sex rights exploiting their children inside. I saw them listening attentively to caucus members, giving each other water, and chanting themselves hoarse. I stood with these people and chanted and sang for almost six hours on Wednesday. Politically on Wednesday, Jarred Barrios, the openly gay senator from Cambridge, introduced an amendment to the Finneran amendment. It gave the same rights to all married couples, regardless of sexual orientation or gender. Finneran enlisted a friend who offered an Amendment to the Barrios amendment called the Travis Amendment, which was essentially the same as the beginning amendment. The Travis Amendment continued to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The decision
On Thursday I returned to the State House but did not spend time in the streets with the Latino woman holding the sign that said "God hates fags" while she explained that she has no problem with gay people. I went through the metal detectors and directly inside the building, where I met up with some of the same people from yesterday. A straight mother and her gay son were speaking to one of the directors of the Caucus about the day’s going-ons. There had been an attempt by one senator to just not vote, to throw the amendment out all-together. This hadn’t worked. For hours, people drank water, chanted, and made themselves visible. The press shot hundreds and hundreds of pictures and hours worth of footage. They interviewed myself and numerous other students throughout the day. Every time a politician came into the great hall to offer a sound byte, the chanting and singing of those supporters of civil rights drowned him or her out.

Members of the press began commenting to the activists and to other reporters about how we were the most dedicated group of people they’d ever seen. Finally, the vote on the Travis Amendment happened. David, a fellow Emerson student, and I made our way to the television monitors. A reporter from the Boston Globe took pictures of us as we stood there and waited for the decision. It hadn’t passed. The entire room erupted into cheers. An older lesbian couple burst into tears, a young gay couple hugged each other tightly while the flashbulbs of reporter’s cameras went off all around them. David and I shouted and hugged the African-American woman we’d met the previous day on the street. She couldn’t have smiled more.

The feedback
All of us thought that finally they would get to vote on the Barrios amendment, that the matter would be solved, and that it would finally end. We were wrong. Travis and Finneran offered ANOTHER amendment to the Barrios amendment, this time still defining marriage but offering same-sex couples all the rights of civil marriage in a package called a civil union. They effectively re-designed what a civil union was. Thankfully, those in the House and Senate were not going to bite. One woman drew parallels between what happened to the Jews during World War II and what was happening to gay people’s rights. The openly lesbian senator spoke at length about what would happen to her partner if she were to die. What would happen to their house. What would happen if someone got sick. Another woman again quoted the "At first they came for the Communists, and I did not speak up because I was not a Communist" statement, ending her speech with "They could come for you or you or you next and if we set this precedent and amend our constitution, there’s no stopping what is next."

Those who were speaking referenced the earlier words of Barrios, whose presentation had moved every single person in the room, even the minority with the "anti-gay" buttons. It was the only time during the entire day that everyone shut up. After a vote to extend until midnight, there was no vote and the decision was made to reconvene in March and finish dealing with the issues. Barrios came out into the crowd and thanked people for their support. Protestors stuck around and applauded those who had made important comments and remarks on the floor throughout the day. A particular aging African-American senator who had said "Shame on you" to anyone who had struggled for civil rights and wasn’t supporting those struggling now got the most amount of applause. I walked out of the state house having spent twelve hours in there. I had never felt so accomplished in my entire life.
While I was on Spring Break, the politicians convened again. Apparently, right-wing Christian groups bussed in hordes of protesters, including a teacher with her elementary school class who held a sign proclaiming "No sex is better than same sex." A compromise amendment tentatively passed, and again they decided to reconvene, this time on March 29. Additionally, now counties in New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, and Oregon are voting to either accept or allow same-sex marriages. Thousands were married in San Francisco and the Terminator himself retracted his initial reaction and said he supports same-sex marriage if the people of California do. A whole lot of people are going to end up going to courts over this issue.

The future
Despite the tremendous victory that happened when the Travis Amendment was defeated, there are so many problems to confront, so many issues to overcome. Legally speaking, this entire case is setting a precedent. This is going to be cited later by lawyers and judges when cases are being tried. Also legally speaking, the protestations of those in power who would like to see an amendment are not legally sound, since they are defying the court.

Furthermore, it is unconstitutional to take away rights retroactively, so regardless of what is decided in March, same-sex marriages are going to start in May. The added support of cities like San Francisco, especially the mayor, for focusing on the anti-discrimination rule in the constitution and saying that this proves marriage cannot be reserved for a certain class of people, is going to be more momentum towards this amazing fight for civil rights. If anti-discrimination law cancels out DOMA, then Bush will have no case for an amendment. Though John Kerry has currently gone on record saying he supports civil unions, not gay marriage, he was one of 14 senators to vote AGAINST The Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which stripped same-sex couples of lots of rights and is the main evidence used in the argument against same-sex marriage today.

Some of the more apathetic Bostonians don’t understand why people are fighting for this. They talk about marriage being about love, and if people love each other, does it really matter if the law sees them as together? After hearing horror stories about sick children, hospitals turning away partners, health insurance, death-related problems, etc…I was convinced that while love is very important, there are things that one needs as a married couple. Important things. Additionally, why deny someone rights? I do not want to live in a country where a constitution is amended to take rights away from a group of people.
If you had seen the cross-section of people packed into this gold-domed building, one of the oldest in America, you would have been amazed. Priests with rainbow flags stood next to old white men holding "straight but not narrow signs." I stood with my "No discrimination in the Constitution" sign, and next to me was another boy from Emerson. He ended up on the front page of the Boston Globe, as part of their minimal and brief coverage of all the goings-ons (the national media did a terrible job and should be yelled at). His sign? "I’m 19 and someday I want to tell my mom I am getting MARRIED."

If you would like to be involved or find out more about all that’s going on, visit:
Massequality.org or HRC.org.