Marriage Equality in Massachusetts: The Encouraging Aftermath

What happened after Massachusetts became the first state to permit same-sex marriage? A whole lotta GLBT citizens gained more of their civil rights under the law, although they still have no access to benefits like Social Security survivorship funds that other married people get -- thanks to the federal "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) signed by President Clinton. If the couples move to most other states, they'll lose the rights provided by Massachusetts. The DOMA will also most likely prevent the married couples from being counted as such in the federal 2010 census.

What's encouraging is that opposition faded fast as newly married couples went on with their lives just like everybody else. Some things for New Mexicans to think about this Sunday morning are provided in a comprehensive article by the AP. Well worth a read in its entirety, but here's an excerpt that includes the experience and changing views of a lawmaker who represents a heavily Catholic, socially conservative district:

Fading opposition
One of the striking developments, since 2004, is the fading away of opposition to gay marriage among elected officials in Massachusetts.

When the state's Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2003 that banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, there seemed to be sufficient support in the Legislature for a ballot measure that would overturn the decision. But efforts to unseat pro-gay-marriage legislators floundered; a gay-marriage supporter, Deval Patrick, was elected governor; and a climactic push for a referendum was rejected by lawmakers in 2007 by a 151-45 vote.

Last year, lawmakers went further, repealing a 1913 law that blocked most out-of-state gays from marrying in Massachusetts. The vote in the House was 119-36.

The near-consensus now among political leaders is a far cry from 2003-04, when the debate was wrenching for legislators such as Sen. Marian Walsh. Her district, including parts of Boston and some close-in suburbs, is heavily Catholic and socially conservative, so when same-sex marriage became a public issue, "there wasn't an appetite to discuss it, let alone support it," Walsh said.

Once the high court ruled, Walsh faced intense pressure from constituents wanting to know whether she would support efforts to overturn it.

"I had hundreds of requests to meet with people on both sides," Walsh said. "Everyone wanted to know how was I going to vote."

She read up on the law, engaged in countless conversations, wrestled with her conscience, and finally decided the court was right — and there should be no referendum.

"It was a lot of hard work," she said. "I came to the decision that it really is a civil right — that the constitution was there to protect rights, not to diminish rights." [emphasis added]

She described the reaction as a "firestorm" — embittered constituents, hate mail and death threats, rebukes from Catholic clergy, but she won re-election in 2004 and again in 2006 over challengers who opposed gay marriage.

"They said marriage is always between a man and women," Walsh mused. "I used to think that was true. I had those same premises, but those premises were false."

If you haven't seen it yet, please read Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson's powerful piece on marriage equality and President Obama's frustrating silence on this and other GLBT rights issues. Highly recommended.