Anti-gay Meltdown in Massachusetts
Observations of the Massachusetts Legislative Hearings
By Trish Wilson

Jan. 10, 2004 -- BOSTON (Trish Wilson) -- The right-wing Massachusetts Family Institute recently was caught in a bald-faced lie when its leader, Ron Crews, admitted that his organization had showcased poll results favorable to its political position while suppressing others that did not meet its approval:

At a rally Wednesday, the group touted Zogby poll results that indicated 69 percent of respondents wanted a chance to vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

The group also highlighted a question that showed 52 percent said that "only marriage between one man and one woman should be legal," with 42 percent disagreeing.

The group didn't release information that poll respondents opposed the constitutional amendment, by a split of 49-48 percent. It also didn't mention that poll respondents, by a margin of 48-46, did not want lawmakers to prevent marriage licenses from being issued to homosexual couples in May, when the Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing gay marriage takes effect.

I found this story to be very eye-opening because I had participated in the Massachusetts hearings on gay marriage, civil unions, and abortion. A couple of right-wing speakers requested that their anti-choice and anti-gay marriage views be placed on the ballot for the next elections so that the people of Massachusetts may vote on them. I think they knew that the legislature may not see those issues the way they saw them, so they would rather bypass the legislative process and go after the popular vote. That tactic was quickly squashed by the pro-choice and pro-gay rights folk who testified when they pointed out that the system of checks and balances inherent in the legislative process is appropriate for these issues. If Brown v. Board of Education had been up for popular vote, it probably would have never passed because at the time desegregation was very unpopular with the general public.

It seems that the Massachusetts Family Institute had attempted to circumvent that process by first taking a poll, and then misrepresenting its own poll findings.

I had contacted Greater Boston NOW in mid-October 2003 to fill them in on some bills sponsored by Massachusetts fathers' rights groups that are harmful to women and children. Frankly, those bills do not benefit men very much either. My contact had told me about the hearings to be held on October 23rd for bills about gay marriage, civil unions, abortion, and a rape and sexual assault victim's bill of rights. I sat in on the hearings for all of those bills that day. I had provided written testimony against the "partial-birth" abortion ban.

The morning was crisp and bright when I arrived at the Massachusetts State House shortly before 11 am, just in time for the hearings. Everyone had to go through metal detectors, which I know is normal operating procedure for entering the State House. In the back of my mind, I couldn't help thinking about September 11, considering how close I was to Logan Airport. Abortion and gay rights are very polarizing issues, so the extra precautions were necessary anyway.

As usual, the religious right forces were well-organized. I can only imagine how many mailers went out instructing anti-choice and anti-gay marriage folk where and when to meet. I know that there are conservatives and people of many faiths, including Christian, who support a woman's right to choose and support civil rights for gays such as the right to marry. I neither saw nor hear from them that day. Most of the people standing in line with me wore Christian symbols, flag pins, or stickers with anti-choice slogans such as "It's A Child. Not A Choice." They were young and old, dressed conservatively or in jeans and sweats. A priest stood behind me. It was a little chilly so quite a few standing in line, including me, nursed cups of coffee.

I had never before provided testimony for the Massachusetts legislature, nor had I met anyone from Greater Boston NOW, so I felt a little lost after I made it past the metal detectors. The anti-choice, anti-gay marriage, religious right folk wore round blue stickers that looked nearly identical to NOW's stickers. These stickers co-opted feminist language. They stated that "women deserve a right to know" the "truth" about abortion. I saw a huge group of people wearing those stickers walking up a staircase. The young woman standing next to me commented that there were a lot of men in that group. I didn't understand what she meant at the time because I took those stickers to mean that the people wearing them were pro-choice. How wrong I was! Later I understood her point: there were a lot of men present that day that had no problem at all meddling in a woman's reproductive privacy. Later, when I saw the infamous photograph of George W. Bush surrounded by a smiling group of pasty old white men as he signed the federal "partial birth" abortion ban, I remembered that group of men who walked up those stairs. All of them were eager to tell women what they could do with their bodies, and they wanted to make sure the Massachusetts legislature heard them when they said it.

Those stickers fooled me for a while. Since I knew no one in the room, I walked up to a few grandmotherly-types who wore those blue stickers if they knew where the people from NOW were. At least they were polite. It was rather funny. The anti-choice folk who wore that sticker supported a "women's right to know" bill that required intrusive "instruction" about various options that the anti-choice camp would decide that women needed to hear about when they enter a women's medical clinic upon finding out that they are pregnant. Massachusetts law already requires full disclosure of options and information about medical procedures, including abortion. The "women's right to know" bill went beyond what was already required by Massachusetts state law in a very intrusive way. It bordered on harassment of women who seek medical services, including abortion. It would also be expensive to implement if it passed. Considering current budget cuts in Massachusetts, it would not have been economically feasible.

While I was temporarily confused by the round blue stickers that mimicked NOW's stickers, the other stickers and pins the anti-choice and anti-gay marriage folk wore were much more direct. I found the subterfuge behind the blue stickers sneaky on their part. The sneakiness gave me an unpleasant view of their underhanded tactics. I wonder now if any legislators had been confused, but they probably caught on faster than I did. One purpose for wearing stickers serves as a gauge so that the legislators know how many people who support or oppose various bills are present during testimony. That way, at least, the stickers and pins are helpful. In a sense, those stickers that mimic the opposition's stickers might confusion the legislators -- therefore backfiring on the people who wear them. In the end, I don't think this actually happened but it's a consideration. It's best to be as direct as possible.

I finally found people in the room who held my views and I sat with them. The room reminded me of an ampitheatre. There were seats on the ground and several rows of aisles like you'd see in a stadium. We sat a few aisles up, facing the legislators.

At the beginning of the hearings, the legislators had told everyone in the packed room to not applaud at the end of testimony because the hearings would take forever. I think they were afraid the political mood would get out of hand. Once, the religious right crowd erupted in applause after one of their side testified about one of these bills. It might have been against the civil unions bill. I can't remember. The legislature was not pleased. The move came across as very disruptive and rude. It certainly didn't win any brownie points.

A group of religious right folk sat behind me. Whenever anyone would get up to testify for gay marriage or civil unions or to testify against the abortion bills, these people would start praying. It was an obvious and public political display. One man decided to shove his way past me and the women from Massachusetts NOW with whom I sat rather than take the longer and easier way around. This man accidentally-on-purpose brushed his dirty shoes on my white coat. He leaned over with a smile I later realized was a sneer, brushed the dirt away with one hand, and said he didn't want to mess up my nice, clean coat. Being a polite and decent person, I thought he really had accidentally stepped on my coat. However, the woman sitting next to me gave him a look that spat daggers. It took me a few minutes to figure out what a hostile passive-aggressive stunt this man had pulled. It really creeped me out. I moved my coat to my side (it had been sitting on a wide ledge behind me), and tucked my briefcase and purse tightly under my legs. Once he sat down behind me, he began to pray the moment anyone stood up to testify in support of gay marriage, or to say that the abortion laws promoted by the religious right camp not only violated the constitution, they invaded women's privacy. There must have been some kind of signal the anti-choice/religious right folk gave each other, because they would pray and emote at the same time. It was like watching a flock of starlings dive-bomb the same tree, at the same time, without warning, but without all the noise.

I couldn't believe some of the statements I heard coming from the anti-gay marriage folk who testified. I was amazed anyone would say such things in public. I heard distasteful statements blaming gays for AIDS. Those who testified against the gay marriage and civil unions bills insisted that marriage is defined by bearing children, and since gay persons cannot give birth, they should not be permitted to marry. Several university professors had addressed those statements, saying that if that was the case, infertile straight couples and elderly straight couples would not be permitted to marry. There were statements that infidelity was rampant in gay relationships, especially gay male relationships, without noting that infidelity was certainly not unheard of in straight relationships.

Insincere concern for children did not hide the bigotry of the people who spoke against gay marriage. The same misrepresentations about children faring best in straight, married families that have been used to malign single and divorced mothers were used against gay and lesbian parents. I am long familiar with those arguments in my family law activism. The only family form considered valid by neo-conservatives and the religious right is the married, heterosexual, father-headed household. All other family forms, whether they are single and divorced moms or gay and lesbian, are viewed as substandard; i.e., not "real." Not only that, this neo-conservative viewpoint condemns alternative family forms as harmful for children. The key issues in those studies neo-conservatives purposefully misrepresent, especially with bogus statistics about "fatherless" homes, are that children thrive in healthy households where there is little conflict, and the primary caregiving parent is not under great stress. That parent may be married, divorced, single, gay, or straight.

Members of the clergy, including priests wearing their collars, testified about how horrible it would be for children to be raised by gay parents. I found their concern about these children being stigmatized and confused wanting, especially since there continues to be fall-out from the priest pedophile scandals that have torn apart churches in Massachusetts. Before the clergy looks down upon others it should clean up its own mess.

Some anti-choice and religious right women brought along their infants as props to support heterosexual marriage and the "women's right to know" bill. I've seen that done before at rallies and at father's rights protests. I think it's inappropriate.

The legal battle is not over. Massachusetts Speaker of the House Thomas Finneran has endorsed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The Rainbow Network reports that last week, Finneran had placed this Act on hold. Governor Mitt Romney has also spoken in support of defining marriage as strictly heterosexual. Shortly after news of the ruling spread across the country and around the world, our anti-choice and anti-gay rights President released a White House proclamation stating that "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage." DOMA was defeated by the Massachusetts legislature last year, yet it is back in front of the legislature now.

*****

MA House Bill 1149 ­ Civil Unions: http://www.state.ma.us/legis/bills/house/ht01149.htm

MA Senate Bill 935 ­ Civil Unions: http://www.state.ma.us/legis/bills/st00935.htm

Testimony of Boston Bar Association on Behalf of House Bill 3677 ­ Civil Marriage: http://www.bostonbar.org/prs/civilm.htm

The Rainbow Network: http://www.rainbownetwork.com/content/News.asp?newsid=3946

White House Proclamation: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031118-4.html

MA House Bill 3190 ­ DOMA: http://www.state.ma.us/legis/bills/house/ht03190.htm

Trish Wilson's links:
http://members.aol.com/asherah
http://trishwilson.typepad.com/blog/
http://www.expositorymagazine.net