One year ago today, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that same-sex couples enjoyed the right to marry under the Commonwealth's constitution.
One year ago today, I was sitting at home watching television. The local news came on with one of their "Breaking Stories" interruptions. "At 10:00 this morning, the SJC will release its ruling in the gay marriage case. Stay tuned..."
People had been waiting a long time for this decision.
Justice Scalia's dissent in
Lawrence v. Texas (which said y'all couldn't throw us gay people in jail for having sex anymore), had foreseen this moment:
This reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Justice O'Connor seeks to preserve them by the conclusory statement that "preserving the traditional institution of marriage" is a legitimate state interest. Ante, at 7. But "preserving the traditional institution of marriage" is just a kinder way of describing the State's moral disapproval of same-sex couples.
At 10:00, the news came: The Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had ruled that same-sex couples enjoyed the right to marry under the Commonwealth's constitution.
I immediately called my aunt's house; she was at work but her partner was home.
"Turn on CNN," I said.
"Why, are you on?"
"Just turn it on."
Then the news hit her. She and my aunt had gone to Vermont and gotten a Civil Union; they'd had a commitment ceremony. Now, it looked like they were going to be able to get married.
The SJC began its decision:
Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.
Couples wouldn't be able to marry immediately, though. The SJC stayed implementation of its decision for 6 months. The court saw this period as a time for the state to bring its procedures (forms) etc. in line with its ruling. Governor Mitt Romney (R-UT) and members of the legislature saw it as something else all together.
The leadership of the Senate asked for an advisory opinion answering the question: Will Civil Unions or a similar alternative fulfill Goodridge? Answer: No; Equal marriage is the only that will fulfill this ruling.
Then came the Constitutional Convention. Going in, no one was optimistic about our chances. Yes, time was on our side (it would take at least two years for the process to play itself out--by then, marriages would have taken place already). But the powerful Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran (boo, hiss) had for years been adamantly opposed to any kind of gay rights. The Catholic Church, still a powerful force in Massachusetts, even though its power has been waning, was throwing its resources into the fight. The Black Ministers' Alliance was mobilizing congregations. Buses of conservative evangelicals were brought in to protest at the State House. There were media everwhere. It was a zoo, inside and outside the House Chambers and the State House. The quick loss I expected never materialized. We managed to organize, tell our stories and change enough minds to make the ConCon last four days over two months. We emerged with the least bad amendment coming out of the convention, passing with only 105 votes (101 were needed).
Again, time was on our side. Governor Romnet (R-UT) attempted several methods of gaining a longer stay because of the first passage of the amendment, but the Attorney General refused to take his claim before the SJC and the legislature refused to pass a bill allowing the Governor to bypass the A.G. A few other desperate lawsuits were filed in order to stop same-sex marriages from happening, but they all failed.
Then it was time.
Cambridge, the night of May 16, 2004. The city had made noises right after the issuance of Goodridge that they would immediately begin marrying same-sex couples. They backed off in November, but when it came to expiration of the SJC's stay, Cambridge wasn't going to wait. City Hall was going to be open at midnight to take marriage applications (couples in MA have to file a "Notice of Intent" to marry. They must then wait three days before they can pick up the actual license and get married. It is possible to waive the three-day wait by going before a judge. While City Hall was going to open at 12:01, the Courts wouldn't open until their usual business hours).
More than just happy couples came to City Hall. Some media reports had upwards of 10,000 people lining up in front of the building to celebrate. Despite the heat of emotion on possible conflict during the Constitutional Convention, the only people who showed up to protest at Cambrdige City Hall were the infamous Phelpses of Topeka, KS. Everyone was having far too good a time to pay any attention to them. It was time to celebrate: there was a brass band, there were bubbles and confetti and rose petals and rice, there were signs of support. It was just such a happy place (DisneyWorld has nothing on Cambridge City Hall that night). The crowd counted down the clock to midnight, and as each couple emerged from City Hall, a roar would go up. I finally left around 2:00a.m., listening to the BBC talk about the event I'd just been at as I drove home.
Monday, May 17. Across the Commonwealth, town clerks were greeting same-sex couples who were finally exercising their right to marry. I went to Boston City Hall to watch the events. Again, a small group of protesters (they seemed to be the Orthodox Catholic type, not so much evangelical fundies this time). The supportive crowds were much smaller than the night before, but no less enthusiastic. (I had a lovely conversation with a guy from Cleveland who just happened to be in town that day on business.) The news media were filled with images and stories of happy couples. The entire Commonwealth seemed to be celebrating. (Of course, our opponents weren't, but they did keep a low profile.)
I know this has been a rough year for queer politics. We got our asses handed to us on thirteen ballot initiatives barring, among other things, legal recognition of same-sex marriages. We are under seige. The Bush administration is actively attempting to push back the gains of queer movements in more areas than family rights (for instance, removing non-discrimination language from union contract agreements). But, I also have to ask this: do any of you actually think Bush would be acting any different if Massachusetts hadn't recognized same-sex marriage? The right started talking about this stuff before Goodridge was decided, before the municipal civil disobedience in San Francisco and Portland and New Mexico and New York. Same-sex marriage has been an issue on the right for a long time...they don't need us to do anything in order for them to use this issue. They used it in the 1970s to try and oppose the ERA. They used in the 1980s to oppose comprehensive sex education and AIDS prevention efforts. They've been putting things on the ballot for years now. Bush would be attacking us just as hard had we not won in MA. He and his supporters want our gains reversed. Some of them may be, but the grand arc of forward motion won't be. The toothpaste is out of that tube.
It was sad to see the ways people were advocating dumping gay folks or gay marriage as a path for the Democratic Party to take. Thankfully, it was a minority view. But I have to ask, how did the Democratic party actually embrace us in the last election? Kerry came out in support of some of the constitutional amendments (MA, MO, anyone?). We were told at that point to "take one for the team." How many of the major Democratic candidates for President supported same-sex marriage? Kucinich, Sharpton? Anyone who had a chance? Who was pushing gay issues during the campaign? It seems to me that we were fairly quiet; we agreed to "take it for the team." It was the right raising issues, not us. It was the right making same-sex marriage a central part of the conversation, not us. Did we not take enough for the team?
Today is a day to celebrate. A year ago today, gay people won the right to marry the partner of their choice. Six months ago yesterday, we put that right into practice. Let me say that another way, gay people are enjoying the benefits and obligations of civil marriage in the United States. That's pretty big. When I first became an activist, I thought it would be another 50 years before we saw this--it may take that long to see it nationwide, but gay folks is getting married.
I've been quoting this a bit lately, but I'll draw on the closing of Angels in America again:
The world only spins forward. We will be citizens. The time has come....
The Great Work begins.
HAPPY ANNIVERSARY MASSACHUSETTS