First, I may have been mistaken about Baker. The general counsel of the Massachusetts Bar Association thinks the ruling does not allow civil unions as a solution, via the NY Times:
“The court essentially stayed its order for six months “to give the Legislature a chance to respond to regulation of same-gender marriage in terms of how they want to change the regulatory scheme in Massachusetts, the marriage statute, to respond to this new ruling,” said Martin W. Healy, general counsel to the Massachusetts Bar Association. “It does not allow the Legislature to go back and adopt a separate scheme, if you will, for same-gender union, or marriage,” he asserted.
Although “the assembly or citizens of Massachusetts could by referendum change the state constitution,” Mr. Healy said, such a move would be “a multiyear proposition.” Under the state constitution the earliest any such amendment could be voted on would be November 2006, Mr. Healy said. In the interim, some legal analysts said, gay couples will be granted marriage licenses, he added.”
(I changed the paragraphing on that so it would take up less space. The rest of the Times article is here.)
The Boston Phoenix outlines (and editorializes) about the state Constitutional amendment procedure here. It’s not very hard to do:
“While our state constitution, like the US Constitution, prevents the passage of laws that take away the rights of the minority, it’s shockingly easy for Massachusetts citizens to amend the constitution to do just that: 10 registered voters must draw up a new amendment; organizers must collect signatures from three percent of the total votes cast in the last gubernatorial election in support of the amendment (until the 2002 election is certified, that means 57,100 signatures); 25 percent of state legislators must approve the amendment in two successive legislative sessions; and a simple majority of Massachusetts voters must approve the amendment in a statewide election. It may sound difficult, but it’s not.”
There was actually an attempt to start the amendment process before the court decision, but the Senate President, Tom Birmingham (the only one of my state leaders whom I respect–go Tom!) basically stopped it. From the same Phoenix article:
“The legislature didn’t stop the odious anti-gay constitutional amendment. Senate president Tom Birmingham, who chairs constitutional conventions, did. He did so by letting members vote on whether or not to adjourn the convention before taking up any business. If he had let the convention go forward, it would have taken more than 75 percent of the legislators to stop the anti-gay amendment — a threshold that would not have been met.”
I don’t know if Birmingham can do that indefinitely. Mitt Romney and Tom Finneran will probably support an amendment. It could lose in a referendum, though; I don’t know. It would be all about turnout.
Well, I guess I’ll have something to do when the Presidential campaign ends. (sigh) Speaking of the Presidential campaign, a Vermont newspaper has published the statement that Howard Dean made when he signed the Civil Unions bill in 2000, for which he is about to catch holy hell. No word yet from the democratic presidential candidates about today’s ruling, except Kerry, who said, “while I continue to oppose gay marriage, I believe that today’s decision calls on the Massachusetts state Legislature to take action to ensure equal protection for gay couples. These protections are long overdue.”
UPDATE: Dean just released this statement: “As Governor of Vermont, I was proud to sign the nation’s first law establishing civil unions for same-sex couples. Today, the Massachusetts Court appears to have taken a similar approach to the Vermont Supreme Court and its decision that led to our civil unions law. One way or another, the state should afford same-sex couples equal treatment under law in areas such as health insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance rights.
“There will be those who try to use the decision today to divide Americans. Instead, this decision should be viewed as an opportunity to affirm what binds us together — a fundamental belief in the equality of human beings, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation.”
He had me at “As Governor.”
UPDATE 2: I am shamefully ignorant of Mass. politics. Tom Birmingham is no longer Senate president, it’s now Robert Travaglini, Democrat of Boston. He has not yet taken a position.
Oy. On the other hand, it would be a beautiful thing to defeat that referendum.
Ah, the courageous Mr. Kerry again stakes out the fence-straddling position.
I can’t say as I’m particuarly impressed with Kerry’s statement there, but that’s because I don’t share the religious beliefs from which I assume he derives his opposition to gay marriage. Since I realize a large portion of Americans share those convictions, what matters to me is his willingness to recognize that his personal religious prohibitions are not subscribed to by everyone, and that consenting grown adults should have the right to make their own choices on the matter. I find Christian condemnations of homosexuality ridiculous and reprehensible, but I doubt that’s going to change anybody’s mind. The end of state-enforced inequality and the recognition that allowing loving, commitmed couples to share their lives together is not about to end the valuable institution of marriage any time soon… well, it might.
As a Christian, I’ve never figured out how the legal recognition of gay couples would Undermine The Institution of Marriage As We Know It either. Does the Christian Right think that guys are going to leave their wives en masse for their fishing buddies? Or that women will leave their husbands for the mother of Junior’s favorite play date?
Katherine, don’t kick yourself for your ignorance: Travaglini is the current Senate president, but it was Birmingham’s gavel that prevented the marriage amendment from passing last year, much to his credit.
Right, I knew I wasn’t wrong about last spring. I just plumb forgot that he’d been replaced.
Actually, I can’t see our state voting to amend the constitution to take away people’s rights–especially two years after they get them, when the sky hasn’t fallen. It’s the federal amendment that’s the more immediate problem. If Daschle is going to be this freaking spineless, we may not be able to count on the Senate blocking it. He needs to go. Reid, Schumer, almost anyone would be better. There is no Democratic Senator who is as divisive as Tom DeLay, and what price have they paid?
And then you have it approved by the states, and Wyoming counts as much as California–yet another way in which the high population states are underrepresented in our government.