March 2004

Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the AFSC.

Legislators Come Out Against Banning Same Sex Marriage

After twelve same-sex couples attempted to get married in Massachusetts and were denied licenses, they sued, arguing that discriminatory marriage laws violated the state constitution. In November, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in a landmark ruling, agreed (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, see www.glad.org/marriage/).

The majority opinion noted the legal similarities between this case and the California Supreme Court case outlawing a ban on marriage between people of different races (Perez v. Sharp 32 Cal. 2d 711, 728 (1948)), and the US Supreme Court ruling overturning such laws in all US states (Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)).

On February 11 and 12, 2004, the MA legislature met in a joint constitutional convention to consider various constitutional amendments, each of which would mandate marriage discrimination against same-sex couples. In MA, if the legislature approves proposed amendments two years in a row, the proposal is then put to the voters. By a razor-thin margin, the proposed amendments failed in February, but the legislature is scheduled to reconvene March 11, to resume debate. Excerpts from speeches opposing discrimination follow below. Full transcripts of the speeches are available, as is information about how to get involved, at www.massequality.org.

I am biased. You are all thinking that. He is up there because he is gay. I am the first person to speak on this who is directly affected by it. We will lose inheritance benefits, health care as state employees, and numerous financial benefits.

My two children are also affected by this, Nathaniel and Javier, as well as my partner Doug. Don't fool yourself about what you are voting for. This will deny basic rights that many of you might not understand are rights which you have.

Camille Crawford from Marshfield, outside the MA statehouse, objected to holding anyone's civil rights hostage to a majority vote, Feb. 11, 2004. Photo: Ellen Shub

Two weeks ago, one of the two boys we recently adopted, the younger one, became sick. They are 7 and 12. It was our first serious illness. I was taken aback. I didn't listen to him as seriously as I should have. I thought he just didn't want to go to school. He had a fever and we brought him home.

His fever grew worse and worse. I am a new parent. I did what my mom used to do. Sweat the fever out. Put a blanket on him. It kept getting higher. It was 104.5 when I called the hospital. I was very upset. My seven-year-old was screaming. I reached a nurse and started going into the symptoms. She asked, "Are you the parent?" The parent they had listed was Doug. She said, "You are not listed. Are you married?" What ensued seemed like an eternity. My child had a 104.5 fever. I though he could die on my watch while I was fighting with a nurse over whether I was his parent or not.

The human aspect to this debate is very important to understand. I will never be able to go on the list as the married partner if any "Defense Of Marriage Amendment" passes. None of your gay friends and loves ones will. There are real harms which are incurred by this. If I were to die tomorrow, before May 17, my partner would be ineligible for Social Security survivor benefits. I am currently barred from designating my partner as my pension beneficiary. How am I to make sure my children are taken care of?

Javier asked me about a poster with an epithet. It said, "God Hates Fags." He asked me if god hated. I am the Latino senator, the gay guy, the liberal senator. I am a practicing Catholic, a proud proud Catholic. God does not hate people. It would be easy to demonize the other side. It would be easy to teach my son to hate. Jesus instructs us to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you, so I am teaching Javier to pray.

The United States Constitution and the Constitution of Massachusetts in 1790 were very different documents because the US Constitution did not guarantee liberty. But the Massachusetts Constitution did.

No one here should be surprised that a year after the US Constitution was ratified, an African-American elderly woman in Stockbridge decided she was not a slave anymore. So she sued. And she won. One judge ruled that slavery was unconstitutional in Massachusetts. Not because of the US Constitution, but because of the Massachusetts Constitution. The difference was that nowhere in the Massachusetts Constitution did we separate, or enunciate any group that would be separate under the constitution. We are being called by some today to change that. We are being asked to say to one group, "You no longer have the rights of everyone else in this Commonwealth."

The people who wrote this constitution guaranteeing those rights to everybody, they did not know who everybody was going to be. Many of them had prejudices that many of us would condemn today. At that time, Roman Catholics could not vote in this Commonwealth. So in 1813, this state passed a law that said all people could vote regardless of their religion. They would not have been able to pass that law if [discrimination had been] written into the constitution.

For me, this is a civil rights issue. Because I understand the institution of marriage is a civil institution as well as a religious institution. When married people get their benefits they do not go to their religious institution to get those benefits. They go to the government. The question before us is should everyone, regardless of their gender, have the opportunity to choose their partner in that institution? What we find in that Supreme Judicial Court decision is there is no order to change any part of all of the marriage laws that we have in this state. The order is simply to open those benefits to a group of people that have been discriminated against and prevented from having those benefits. It draws distinctively from our understanding of liberty.

When the people wrote the US Constitution, they had no idea that a debate like this would ever happen. But remember, the founders of our constitution had no idea that I would ever be standing here talking to you.

Let us make that distinction in our minds. There are people, religious leaders that think what we are doing is wrong because of their religion. I ask them to consider the alternative - deliver their religion in a nation that does not believe in freedom of religion. If you are a little religious group or a huge religious group, you are free to practice. But you have to follow this rule: the other religious groups down the street have the freedom to practice also. There are religious groups in this state that believe same sex marriages are fine. The big religious organizations in this state were once tiny. The reason why we have this freedom is because we all understand our relationship within a democratic society.

There are a number of ministers of African-American churches that have forgotten that. They have forgotten their relationship to the struggle for the rights of African-Americans. They have forgotten it in an incredible way, because they are telling us that black people, once they have gotten those rights, don't have to share what they got in those civil rights. I say to any of the African-American leaders in this state that have taken that position: "Shame on you." Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." I am convinced that we together, in this convention, are heading toward justice.

By a slim majority last night, you voted not to amend the constitution to keep Liz (Rep. Malia) and others as nine tenths of a citizen. Enshrining in the constitution a document under which she leaves the chamber and doesn't have the privilege that other people have cannot possibly jibe with what the constitution and democracy is all about.

The president and vice president [of the US] got this issue correct when the nation was united after 9/11. The administration decided to afford survivor benefits to the partners of homosexual citizens.

You would not say you are superior to the gentlewoman from Jamaica Plain. You would never say that to her face. As a conservative, whenever that happens we should be incredibly appalled at that.

I read that we are going to compromise. That doesn't make any sense to me. Is Liz eight tenths of a citizen? 99.9%? Anything less than 100% demeans the spirit of Massachusetts.

If you believe that the love Liz has is less than the love you have for your [partner], I would suggest you are wrong. That is what this is about, the judgment of love.

I [therefore] ask you to adjourn this constitutional convention. There is respect in adjourning.

I oppose this amendment. Please reconsider the impact of moving a denial of rights into the constitution.

The institution of marriage has never been rigid and inflexible. It has evolved. At one point, women were the property of their husbands when they were married. They had no rights.

I can't change your hearts. I thank my colleague from Dalton. His remarks really moved me. Some folks were offended by personal references made over the last two days. I disagree respectfully because there is no other way for those of us in the gay and lesbian community to convey the needs and the reality of our lives unless we tell you about them.

Not one person here asked whether, if I had a serious accident or heart attack, should Rita (Rep. Malia's partner) be able to visit me? I know that no one in this room would tell me no. I also know that the possibility exists that that's an issue for me. If I were to die, my partner of 30 years might lose her home. Look into your hearts. Do not carve in stone a status that is less than equal.

I rise in opposition to this amendment. This is difficult for me on a number of levels. I have come to a place of anger for the first time since coming to this House.

You can't compromise on discrimination. You can't color it another way. Let's start with race. You have to deal with it. We had to deal with it in the Constitution, with women and immigrants. I, my friend, fit all those categories and but for the equal protections of the laws, I would not enjoy the position and freedom I enjoy today.

I cannot compromise on the Constitution. I can't compromise on discrimination. I am also Catholic. But I cannot say yes to the Travis amendment. My role as a legislator is separate from my role in a parish. We are speaking here of state action - not private action, not religious action. And if the state is involved in marriage, we ought to do it equally. That's one of the fundamental protections of government.

What is special about this American democracy is we are willing to put aside the power of the majority to respect the power of the minority. This is not simply about gay rights. This is about who we are as an American democracy. At the beginning of the 20th century, if my rights were placed on the ballot, I would not be free.

Being one born under a dictatorship [in Haiti], who has lost family because of the actions of those dictators, I say the most precious gift that we have is this constitution and for us to amend it for the purpose of discrimination is to really take away from who we are.

In February and early March, 2004, legislators in three other states (Maine, Wyoming, and Indiana) voted down discriminatory constitutional amendments.

President Bush proposed an amendment to write heterosexism into the Federal Constitution. Senator John Kerry spoke out against a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, but opted to support the proposed Massachusetts amendment. To let Kerry know how you feel about this, contact his office at 304 Russell Bldg. 3rd Fl., Washington DC 20510, 202/224-2742 phone, 202/224-8525 fax. You may also wish to inform the Kerry campaign about how you feel by attending a Kerry meet-up on the 4th Thursday of the month (see www.johnkerry.com/meetup/).

To let your legislators know how you feel about the Federal discrimination amendment, and to get more involved, please see www.ngltf.org, www.hrc.org, and www.freedomtomarry.org.

Previous Article    Next Article