The Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage's (MCM) initiative petition for a constitutional amendment goes beyond merely codifying marriage as between one man and one woman. It would also bar all legal recognitions for same-sex couples, including civil unions or any domestic partnership benefits. But if recent discussions between Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) and Attorney General Thomas Reilly's office are any indication, same-sex marriage proponents will have to work a lot harder to educate the rest of the voting public about how prohibitive the amendment actually is, in the event that Reilly certifies the petition and allows the amendment process to move forward.
Reilly has until Sept. 5 to either certify the initiative petition or squash it completely. GLAD and long-time lobbyist Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Caucus, met with Reilly's office last week to present arguments for the latter, on the grounds that the initiative violates Article 48 of the amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, which bans initiatives that relate to the powers of the courts. By seeking to codify that no other relationship will be ``recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent, nor shall it receive the benefits or incidents exclusive to marriage," GLAD says MCM's amendment would tread on the probate court's jurisdiction in such matters, for instance, ruling on the validity of, or what kind of respect could be given to an out-of-state marriage. The goal of the amendment GLAD's Mary Bonauto concludes, ``is to diminish the power of the courts."
If Reilly certifies the amendment, MCM is then faced with the task of gathering 57,100 voter signatures in support of the initiative, which must be certified by the secretary of state by Dec. 5. The amendment would then be put to the state Legislature, where 25 percent of lawmakers must approve it for two successive years, before voters would make the ultimate determination with a 2004 ballot question.
In addition to certifying the amendment, the attorney general is also charged with crafting a summary of the measure that MCM would present to voters while gathering signatures and that would also appear on the final ballot. For less savvy voters, it may be the only sliver of information they receive about the amendment before they cast their ballots, and as such it can be a pivotal piece of information.
The summary for MCM's initiative was also a topic of discussion during GLAD's recent meeting with Reilly's office.
Isaacson was outraged to learn that the attorney general is leaning toward using a summary that is nearly identical to the language of MCM's amendment, which Isaacson charges is a vaguely worded attempt to disguise its anti-gay nature. ``It's brilliantly crafted to obfuscate the true intent and its true ramifications," she said of the amendment.
While MCM would have people believe they are merely voting on whether marriage should be between a man and a woman only, the amendment, Isaacson notes, goes much further into denying same-sex couples a long list of legal protections. ``It's so broad...it can't be called anything less than virulently anti-gay. [MCM] chose wording that obfuscates this entire thing. The wording is vague and unclear," said Isaacson, who also noted that the average citizen has no idea what terms like ``the benefits and incidents" of marriage even means.
``They don't want people to understand," she said. ``It's in the hands of the attorney general to decide whether or not voters will understand what they're voting on," said Isaacson, though she notes that supporters of same-sex marriage will wage a campaign to ``try to communicate our particular understanding of the ballot initiative," she also adds, ``What we're asking the attorney general [to do] is: A) not to certify the initiative; and B) if he does, make sure he tells people the truth in the summary, and the truth means not buying into the opponents' language."
Isaacson says Reilly, who has historically been an advocate of gay civil rights, is caving in to right-wing pressure, although his office insisted to her it was striving to be impartial on the amendment. But she fears the attorney general's current efforts go beyond the bounds of neutrality by favoring summary language that doesn't more clearly state exactly how the MCM amendment will really affect same-sex couples. ``Right now we're deeply concerned that his office is, in an attempt to appear neutral, going to bend over backwards to appease the other side and distance itself from us by certifying the petition and drafting language in the summary which our opponents are seeking which would mislead the voters," said Isaacson.
Isaacson said Reilly's office has rejected summary drafts crafted by GLAD and the Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus that highlight the benefits same-sex couples will lose should the amendment pass. ``It's unacceptable and it's unforgivable," said Isaacson. ``The stakes are way too high on this ... way too high."
Reilly's spokesperson, Marsha Cohen, said the attorney general would have no comment on the amendment until Sept. 5.
Though GLAD's primary focus is on having the amendment proposal declared unconstitutional at this time, Bonauto also expressed concern about Reilly's apparent intention to adopt the MCM's summary language. ``We have respect for the attorney general's office and believe they are doing their job thoughtfully and carefully," said Bonauto. ``But if they certify this ballot initiative, we will disagree with that and if they track the language of the [MCM] we will disagree with that," she said.
While Bonauto recognizes desire of the attorney general's office to remain neutral, she says allowing the use of summary terms ``that don't make the consequences of the amendment clear to either gay people or non-gay people, so that they don't appear to weigh in one way or the other, in our view, that is not neutral."