Hooray for Massachusetts

[Rspaight]

National gay marriage backlash not felt in its home state
By Associated Press
Thursday, November 4, 2004

BOSTON - The national Election Day backlash against gay marriage was not felt in the state blamed with triggering it, as every Massachusetts lawmaker on the ballot who supported gay rights won another term in the Legislature.

The election's outcome, combined with the ascendancy of a new House speaker who supports gay rights, has left in doubt whether a constitutional ban on gay marriage - which was given preliminary approval earlier this year - will get the votes necessary to go to statewide referendum.

The amendment, which would ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions, must be approved in identical form by the 200-member Legislature in the next two-year session before it could wind up before voters on the ballot in November 2006.

"I think we are in a far, far better position than ever before,'' said Josh Friedes, spokesman for the Massachusetts Freedom to Marry Coalition. "The electorate showed that it was incredibly tolerant.''

Massachusetts triggered a national firestorm in November 2003, when its high court ruled that the state constitutional guaranteed same-sex couples equal marriage rights. The decision inspired anti-gay marriage questions in several other state, as well as the constitutional amendment in Massachusetts.

No lawmaker who opposed the amendment, either Republican or Democrat, lost in Tuesday's elections, while three incumbents who supported the amendment lost their seats in earlier primaries. Gay marriage appeared to play a significant role in only one of those losses.

The proposed measure was passed in March on a 105-92 vote, slightly more than required 101 votes necessary for passage. All 84 of the incumbents who opposed the amendment and sought re-election were successful.

Three opponents of gay marriage lost their seats during the September primaries, although gay marriage appeared to play a significant role in only one race. Two of the three were replaced by challengers who have vowed to oppose the amendment.

The results in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriages started taking place on May 17, contrasted sharply with the across-the-board victories for anti-gay marriage questions in 11 states Tuesday.

"Our state is certainly totally out of step with the rest of the nation,'' said Kris Mineau, leader of the Massachusetts Family Institute, the organization that has led the fight against gay marriage in Massachusetts. "Massachusetts residents must be beginning to ask themselves, 'How come we're different than the rest of the country?'''

The difference, according to Massachusetts gay rights advocates, is that same-sex marriage has been a reality in Massachusetts for six months, rather than the hypothetical threat feared by citizens in other states.

"These other votes are irrelevant,'' said Arline Isaacson, co-leader of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. "No one expected us to win in any of those states. But the vote in Massachusetts is proof positive of what we've said, which is that this is not a career-ending vote.''

The political calculus on the constitutional amendment in Massachusetts is difficult to figure, in part because the final construction of the proposed measure offered a mixed bag: banning marriage but allowing for civil unions.

Several staunch opponents of gay marriage voted against the constitutional ban on gay marriage because it included the legalization of civil union. When confronted with the prospect that the amendment could do without their support, they could change their votes.

Conversely, gay-rights advocates surmise that there may be lawmakers who supported the amendment because they feared a dissenting vote would doom their chances at the polls. In even the most conservative districts, however, lawmakers who opposed the amendments were able to fend off their challengers.

Another potential factor is new House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, D-Boston, an ardent supporter of gay rights who replaced a very conservative speaker in late September.

Even opponents of gay marriage acknowledge that there is a very significant third factor, which is that hundreds of same-sex couples have been wed in Massachusetts - without public controversy or uproar - since the March vote on the proposed constitutional amendment.

Rep. Phil Travis, D-Rehoboth, who sponsored the constitutional ban on gay marriage, said that the low-key manner of the gay weddings have eased many fears and could have an impact on the constitutional vote.

"I think that could play into it,'' Travis said. "But the bottom line issue remains: Do you want to give the people of Massachusetts a chance to vote on this?''