Sponsored by the Waltham-based Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage (MCM), the sweeping ``Protection of Marriage" amendments seek to deny any legal protections for same-sex couples, for instance, any form of domestic partner benefits and civil unions, and would define marriage as between a man and a woman only. MCM is currently in the process of collecting the necessary 57,100 signatures in support of the measure, which must be turned over to Secretary of State William Galvin in early December. The amendments must then pass the legislature two years in a row before they could be put before voters in 2004.

From the beginning GLAD has argued in meetings and a brief filed with the attorney general's office that the amendments are unconstitutional because they would interfere with the powers of the court to protect a wide range of families, both gay and non-gay, that exist in the state. Article 48 of the state constitution specifically prohibits voter initiatives that relate to the powers of the court. GLAD also says that the measures would injure state and municipal employees by interfering with the collective bargaining process and remove existing benefits such as bereavement leave and health insurance protections to all non-married couples. ``I would say this is an extremely important case," said GLAD attorney Jennifer Levi. ``We're challenging a ballot initiative that would have a tremendous impact on the gay and lesbian community and beyond."

``The law is quite clear," she added, ``that you can't have a [voter initiative] that relates to the powers of the courts." The proponents of the measure, Levi said, have made it ``crystal clear," that the amendments intend to do just that.

According to Barbara Cox, associate dean of California Western School of Law and a national authority on sexual orientation and the law, the amendments are ``putting restrictions on the way existing laws can be interpreted. You don't want lay people essentially telling the courts how to do their jobs. That's the problem with these initiatives."

GLAD attorney Mary Bonauto says the suit will likely be decided by early next year. Plaintiffs in the suit include Dr. Eli Newberger, assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, a pediatrician with public health and public policy expertise; Harvard Graduate School of Education and Kennedy School of Government faculty member Richard Weissbourd, author of ``The Vulnerable Child"; Nancy Carlsson-Paige, professor of education in child development at Lesley College; Martha Minow, national family law expert at Harvard Law School; AFL-CIO president Bob Haynes; Betsy Smith, who, along with her female partner is expecting her first child this year; and Springfield resident William Conley, recently retired from MassMutual Insurance company and in a 10-year relationship with his male partner.

Springfield Mayor Michael Albano is also a plaintiff in GLAD's lawsuit. ``I've been a supporter of individual rights for some time now," said Albano of his decision to join the suit. Albano noted that just eight days into his administration in 1996 he signed an executive order granting limited domestic partner benefits to municipal workers in his city. After researching the cost of health care coverage, he signed an executive order in 1997 adding health insurance benefits to the existing domestic partner benefits program. More than 100 Springfield employees have taken advantage of domestic partner benefits, including a dozen who are in same-sex relationships. The move to join the suit required little thought on his part. ``I feel that it's a basic question of fairness," he said. Though he has not directly received any negative feedback for taking a stand on the issue, he noted, ``Obviously it is politically controversial. But it is the right thing to do. We have to end this line of discrimination in Massachusetts."

Reilly's decision to certify the amendments has drawn the ire of gay activists in the state, who have accused him of caving in to political pressure. But he has stood by his decision to certify the amendments, telling GLAD he did so not because of his personal views on the petitions, but because they met the criteria of Article 48 for certification. He countered GLAD's arguments that the amendments would limit the powers of the courts by saying their ``main design" was not to limit the courts' power to decide matters relating to families in the Commonwealth.

MCM chair Bryan Rudnick has said that GLAD is attempting to use the courts in order to keep voters from deciding the matter on their own. The question should be left up to voters, he told the Associated Press Oct. 3, not ``activist judges and lawyers."

``Anyone who believes in our system of government should not have a problem with the people deciding this issue," he said.

But GLAD's Bonauto believes the courts must play a role in the battle for equal rights for gays and lesbians, as they have done for other groups throughout history. ``We need to remember that we are in the midst of a civil rights movement and that in any civil rights movement you need to fight on all flanks: the legislature, the courts, and the court of public opinion," said Bonauto. ``These petitions target the courts in particular because the courts apply constitutional principles of equality and fairness. Those principles apply to us as much as they have applied to religious minorities, women, ethnic groups, immigrants and other groups in the past. I think we need to ask the question, `Why do they want to change the basic fundamentals of our constitution?'"