Political stakes high in gay marriage clash
By Scot Lehigh, 2/11/2004 - Boston Globe
WHEN THE Legislature meets today to consider a constitutional amendment on gay marriage, hidden agendas could play a crucial role in deciding what course lawmakers take.
Last night, Senate leaders were still trying to win support for a compromise that would allow legislators to vote for a constitutional amendment that would reserve the term marriage for a man and a woman but ensure for homosexual couples the rights and benefits of marriage through civil unions.
Problem: House Speaker Thomas Finneran yesterday declared himself opposed to that amendment, making the fate of the Senate effort anything but certain.
If such a measure does pass, however, sources close to the Senate leadership say it should be seen less as a deal that will seal the ultimate disposition of the issue than a strategic compromise that was designed to address immediate political considerations.
As Senate leaders see it, voting for such an amendment would establish a public position less liberal than the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ruling that gay marriage must be allowed under the state Constitution.
That's important for several reasons. One is to give Senator John Kerry, a close ally of Senate President Robert Travaglini, some cover as he runs for president. Last year, Travaglini said he intended to do "whatever I can for John Kerry." As the Senate president threads his way through the minefield of the gay marriage issue, Kerry's presidential fortunes are said to weigh on his mind.
Since the SJC ruled last Wednesday that gay marriage must be allowed, Kerry, who opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions, has regularly been pressed to declare whether he would support a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. So far Kerry has temporized. But the Senate thinking is that if the Legislature acts in the aforementioned fashion, Kerry could then endorse that action. Further, by establishing a public position more moderate than the SJC's, the Legislature would also help blunt the prevalent national image of Kerry's home state as outside the American mainstream.
It's not just Kerry who would be afforded cover by the compromise, of course.
Legislators in both the House and the Senate are worried that with Governor Romney energetically trying to elect more Republicans, the gay marriage controversy could prove an effective campaign issue for GOP candidates.
But starting an amendment on its apparent way toward a vote by the state's citizens would give vulnerable solons a position they could defend in the fall campaign.
Why apparent? Because there is yet another layer to the strategy, and it takes into account the reality that amending the state Constitution is a three-step process.
The Legislature must first approve the proposed amendment in two successive sessions. That means a favorable vote this year and in either 2005 or 2006. Only then would the proposed amendment be sent to ballot for a public vote, which would occur in November 2006.
Thus sources suggest that a vote for civil unions and against gay marriage is merely a starting position and that once the presidential campaign and the fall legislative elections are over, the political atmosphere may very well change. Which is to say, lawmakers might be more amenable to defeating the proposed amendment when it comes up for the second required vote. If so, the SJC's decision legalizing gay marriage would stand.
Says one person privy to the thinking: "The idea here is to say to the gays, `Look, this is a long fight, and we are only in the early stages. Since we have overrun our supply lines, we may have to backtrack a little and put something up on the board that gives everyone some room to maneuver.' "
Finally, even if the proposed amendment did pass the Legislature twice, the gay community and its allies would still have a very real chance of beating it at the ballot.
That's not an option that gay marriage advocates will find appealing, of course.
Yet with public sentiment sufficiently charged that many lawmakers feel they have to start the amendment process, it at least provides some hope that compromising on the first battle won't necessarily mean losing the war.
Scot Lehigh's e-mail address is lehigh@globe.com.
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
© Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company |
