Many Fronts In Gay Marriage War
Not since the days the Puritans ruled the colony of Massachusetts Bay has there been so much attention on debate by leaders there over what conduct ought to be legal.
Massachusetts state lawmakers Wednesday begin a constitutional convention whose most closely watched agenda item is a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
While gay rights to the legal and economic benefits of marriage are being discussed in most parts of the U.S.A., opponents of gay marriage feel a special urgency in the Bay State because of recent court rulings that have cleared the way for gay marriages to begin in mid-May.
President Bush, who included anti-gay marriage comments in this year's State of the Union address, is reportedly set to take that opposition to the next level.
The Washington Post reports Mr. Bush plans to endorse a federal constitutional amendment against gay marriage - proposed by Colorado Republican Rep. Marilyn Musgrave - with Congressional hearings expected before gay marriages begin in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the front-runner for the Democratic Party's nomination for president, has said that he is opposed to gay marriage but supports the right of gays to enter into civil unions.
In a surprise move, meanwhile, the mayor of San Francisco late Tuesday added fuel to the fire by ordering the city's clerk to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.
"Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry denies them more than a marriage license," says Tom Newsom, the city's newly elected mayor. "It precludes millions of couples from obtaining health benefits, hospital visitation rights and pension privileges."
"I think it is a great step forward, I hope more cities follow," said one gay San Franciscan as word spread around town.
"People who want to do this absolutely should be able to do it," said another, praising Newsom's decision. "Legally we are at a great disadvantage with friends or partners when something tragic happens."
It's not clear how well Newsom's order - if challenged - would hold up in court. But one state lawmaker, Mark Leno, is already at work on a possible cure for any legal problems: a bill endorsing same-sex marriage.
The bill is one of many - covering the gamut ideologically - being taken up by state lawmakers around the nation.
In Georgia, the bill before state lawmakers is yet another proposed constitutional amendment against gay marriage - even though the state already has a law on the books prohibiting same-sex marriage.
The federal constitutional amendment President Bush reportedly plans to support - the Federal Marriage Amendment - is somewhat ambiguous on whether civil unions should be allowed. Supporters of the amendment say it would allow civil unions; opponents of the measure are not so sure about that.
Civil unions, however, are not marriage - at least not according to Massachusetts' highest court, which ruled that denying gays the right to marriage is discriminatory and cannot be allowed to continue.
The debate in Massachusetts is not confined to the statehouse: advocates on all sides of the controversy have been drawn to Boston in droves to witness what is likely to be a historic decision.
As many as 4,000 spectators and 300 media members are expected to attend the start of the constitutional convention, and a furious lobbying effort is already under way.
Christian conservatives used a dolly to haul in more than 18,000 petitions signed by citizens from across the country urging lawmakers to pass the amendment. Meanwhile, children of gay couples traveled to the Statehouse to plead with the Senate president "not to write discrimination into our constitution."
"I've never seen anything like this," said Charles Rasmussen, a spokesman for House Speaker Thomas Finneran. "And I'm told this building has never seen this kind of scrutiny from the national media that anyone can remember."
At the convention, the House and Senate will meet together to consider 10 proposed constitutional amendments. The gay marriage issue is near the bottom of the agenda and might not get to a final vote for days.
Massachusetts put itself at the very center of the gay-marriage debate when the Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4-3 in November that gays should be guaranteed the benefits of marriage.
Lawmakers thought that Vermont-style civil unions might suffice, but the court issued an advisory opinion last week that left no doubt: Only full-fledged gay marriage would be legal under the current constitution.
That cleared the way for the nation's first legally sanctioned same-sex weddings by May, a prospect that some lawmakers hope to short-circuit either through laws or by amending the state constitution.
Less than 24 hours before the convention was to begin, a bipartisan group of Senate leaders proposed a compromise that would ban same-sex marriage but establish civil unions in Massachusetts.
The compromise prompted almost immediate criticism, including from Finneran, who called it "highly inappropriate" to use an amendment to craft legislation or pass new law - like one establishing civil unions.
If approved by the Legislature during this session, the gay marriage amendment would have to again be ratified by lawmakers during the 2005-06 session before it could wind up on the November 2006 ballot.
As the hours ticked down to Wednesday, lawmakers circulated proposed changes to the amendment, hoping to secure the necessary 101 votes among the 199 sitting lawmakers to get it passed.
The last time Massachusetts lawmakers in the heavily Roman Catholic state had a chance to weigh in on the issue of gay marriage was in 2002, when near-brawls erupted among citizens who attended and raised voices were heard in the normally sedate chamber.
That constitutional convention was gaveled to a close before any vote took place.