Editorial
Editorial
We Win! (For Now...)
Thanks
to serious and extensive grassroots organizing by MassEquality and other
pro-marriage equality groups, the Massachusetts legislature, sitting as
a Constitutional Convention on September 14, defeated a proposed constitutional
amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage while providing civil
unions. The vote was 157-39.
That was the same measure that had
passed last year's ConCon by a vote of 105 to 92. If it had passed this
round of voting, the proposed amendment would have appeared on ballots
in the November 2006 election.
Here's the wonky stuff. MassEquality,
a coalition of pro-marriage equality groups, helped build the prevailing
majority in part by working hard during last November’s elections:
all of the legislators facing contests who opposed the amendment last
time were re-elected, sometimes by substantial margins; and of the 18
newly elected legislators voting on the issue for the first time, 16 voted
against the marriage ban.
And while 42 of those voting to defeat
the amendment did so because they opposed its provision of civil unions,
115 members of the majority were voting for equality, or at least against
writing discrimination into our neighbor-state's constitution.
The struggle wasn't cheap and it isn't over.
By its own estimate, MassEquality alone spent $700,000 to support its
legislative allies and to help pro-equality candidates get elected. Hundreds
of marriage-equality volunteers went door-to-door, held fundraisers, and
stuffed envelopes for candidates to achieve those victories. Activists
connected legislators with newlywed gay and lesbian couples who would
talk about what their marriages meant to them. Same-sex marriage stopped
being about 'those people' and started being about 'my constituents' and
'my neighbors.'
Organizations from across the
state — including labor, religious groups, ethnic associations,
professional associations, healthcare providers, and political groups
— became allies and affiliates who spoke out publicly in favor of
marriage equality. They mobilized their own volunteers to contact legislators
and to hand out fliers and speak to people at every imaginable public
venue.
And on September 14, all that work
resulted in a vote for equality and against bigotry.
Being right is not enough, though
it ought to be.
There is still the specter of a citizens'
petition effort, which would ban same-sex marriage, period. If the anti-gay
forces succeed in getting the required number of valid signatures, and
then convince 25 percent of the legislature (just 50 representatives and
senators) to vote for it, the measure would appear on the ballot in 2008.
And from now until then, several thousand
lesbian and gay couples will get married — not joined in civil union,
but married — and the sky will not fall, the divorce rate will not
surge, life will go on, children will go to school...
Here in Vermont, we applaud the Massachusetts
legislator-delegates who stood for marriage equality. And we wonder when
we will get it here at home.
Last month, a legislator I would consider
an ally contacted me at home via email. She asked whether I knew of any
couples who would participate in a press conference with supportive legislators
to urge the federal government to extend marriage benefits to couples
with civil unions.
That's one solution. But I’m
practical enough not to hold my breath waiting for it to happen. Personally
I think all non-religious unions — regardless of the gender of the
partners — should be civil unions. I like that my civil union is
not a marriage and doesn’t carry all that emotional and historical
baggage.
What I don't like is that my spouse pays taxes
to the federal government for the health insurance benefit that covers
me. I don't like that we have to figure our federal taxes twice in order
to pay our state taxes — and give our worksheets to the state —
when straight couples don't. I don’t like that if one of us ends
up in a hospital outside Vermont, the other one might not be included
in decisions about care or even allowed in the room. And if one of us
in an out-of-state hospital dies, the other one might not be allowed to
claim the other's body for cremation or burial. I don’t like that
if she dies before I do, I have no access to her social security survivor
benefits, which will be higher than mine.
So, although I agreed with the legislator,
at first I wondered what realistic political goal such a press conference
would serve. Is it to head off a coming push for marriage equality in
Vermont? Is it a solid show of support or one without substance?
The legislator assured me the letter
that would be written to Congress and the press conference that would
be held to publicize it are entirely sincere. The idea has been floating
since June, but was overtaken by the end-of-session rush, healthcare,
summer study committees, and so on. If the goal is equal rights, the more
avenues we take toward getting there, the better chances we have of getting
those rights. And if nothing else, such a letter would publicize why civil
unions are separate and unequal.
But whether you believe in marriage
as an institution, or civil unions are just fine, it seems clear that
achieving marriage equality carries a symbolic weight that could tip the
balance away from hate and fear. And without the term "marriage,"
we don't even get a seat in the courtroom to argue for our own equality.
Euan Bear,
Editor