Will Massachusetts begin offering marriage licenses to same-sex couples next
month – as the state courts have demanded?
Probably so – but then again, who knows?
Will Massachusetts begin offering marriage licenses to same-sex couples next
month – as the state courts have demanded?
Probably so – but then again, who knows?
Massachusetts legislators recently passed a compromise constitutional amendment
to ban same-sex marriage while legalizing civil unions, step one of a long three-step
process.
The action created confusion as advocates on both sides of the issue expressed
frustration – and as top state officials found themselves at odds about
how to proceed now.
The amendment passed three times. However, it still must be passed again in
the next legislative session before going to voters, which would be 2006 at
the earliest. That would be some two years after the Massachusetts court decision
legalizing same-sex marriage is to take effect next month.
However, following the legislative action, Gov. Mitt Romney said he would ask
the court to delay its decision.
Conversely, Attorney General Thomas Reilly said he would not seek such a delay
in granting same-sex marriage licenses. Reilly said that while he opposes the
courts decision on the issue, Romneys arguments are not valid in
light of the fact the court has ruled twice for same-sex marriages.
Reillys decision creates a considerable dilemma, because Massachusetts
law says the governor can be represented only by the attorney general.
“(But) If we begin providing for same-sex marriages on May 17, as ordered
by the court, and then, our citizens choose to limit marriage to a man and woman
by their vote in November 2006, we will have created a good deal of confusion
during the period in between – for the couples involved, for our state,
for other states where couples may have moved and for the children of these
families,” Romney argued.
Other options may be available to the governor, including issuing an executive
order telling clerks not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Meanwhile, those on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue greeted the recent
action with words of criticism.
The strongest opponents of the amendment were supporters of same-sex marriage.
At one time, they would have been pleased with a concession for civil unions,
some observers note. But now that legalization of same-sex marriages is in sight,
advocates want to settle for nothing else.
Meanwhile, advocates of traditional marriage voiced frustration that the resulting
amendment was not “clean” – did not offer a straight up-or-down
vote on the issue.
Some legislators sought to split the amendment – with one part banning
same-sex marriage and the other part legalizing civil unions. In that way, voters
could decide each question separately, they said. However, those efforts failed.
Rep. Viriato deMacedo favored splitting the amendment.
“(Otherwise) It would be akin to saying to these people, You want
to vote for John Kerry for president? No problem, you can vote for John Kerry,
but youve got to vote for George Bush at the same time. …”
he said. “We are giving the people a false choice. Were saying, You
want one thing? No problem, you can vote to define marriage between a man and
a woman, but the only way you can do it is if you create civil unions entirely
the same as marriage.” (BP)