Girding for battle Energized by the decision in Massachusetts, advocates and opponents of same-sex marriage are gearing up in Rhode Island BY IAN DONNIS

FOR CASUAL OBSERVERS, the groundbreaking decision last month in which the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized marriage for same-sex couples came like an unexpected bolt from the blue. Gays and lesbians in Rhode Island, however, cognizant that the ruling would mark either a significant triumph or sharp setback in the march toward equality, had eagerly anticipated it for months. Now, after the SJC backed the constitutional right of gays and lesbians to marry in Massachusetts, the issue will quickly assume a higher profile in Rhode Island.

Bills to create Vermont-style civil unions and to open marriage to same-sex couples have been introduced in the General Assembly by progressive lawmakers in recent years, winding up, like the bulk of proposed laws, in legislative oblivion. This time, though, with the repercussions of the Massachusetts case likely to resound nationally through the 2004 presidential election, supporters and opponents will be far more energized than in the past. As put by Providence Mayor David N. Cicilline, who last year became one of the most prominent openly gay public officials in the nation, "I think that a decision from the highest court of our neighboring state really raises the seriousness for the discussion about this issue."

Both sides plan to aggressively lobby lawmakers while trying to broaden existing coalitions. "We’ve been working for years with legislators, with members of the public, talking about the hardships faced by families headed by same-sex couples," because of the absence of the legal protection afforded heterosexuals, says Kate Monteiro, president of the Rhode Island Lesbian and Gay Alliance for Civil Rights. "We will just keep talking with people, telling the truth of our lives."

For proponents like Monteiro and Cicilline, extending to gays and lesbians the right to marry is a fundamental matter of fairness and equality. As Monteiro notes, approximately 1400 rights and responsibilities, most of them federal, are conferred by a $35 marriage license — ranging from the simple (the ability to visit one’s spouse at the hospital) to the more profound (the legal ability of a married man or woman to make a medical decision for an incapacitated spouse). In writing the opinion for the four-justice majority, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall of the Massachusetts SJC stressed a similar theme: "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."

Opponents, of course, have a radically different view, describing the advent of gay marriage as "a grievous sin against humanity" that is sharply antithetical to societal interests. Joanne McOsker, president of Catholics For Life, a local group which fervently opposes same-sex marriage, is clearly troubled by the Massachusetts’ SJC decision. "It’s not going to be easy," she says in describing the outlook, likening the ruling to Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 US Supreme Court case that legalized abortion. "Certainly, these men and women are so misinformed," says McOsker. "The average man in the street knows it’s wrong, they know it’s sinful. They’re just abhorred by the whole thing. It’s up to Catholics and Christians to stand up for what is right. I hope the public will fight this vehemently."

In a state with a preponderance of Catholic residents, the public could indeed be a formidable force on this issue. It’s worth noting, though, that Bishop Robert E. Mulvee of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence has remained conspicuously silent on the gay marriage issue — a sharp contrast, to be sure, from how parish priests in Massachusetts recently read a statement authored by the Bay State’s four bishops, condemning the SJC’s decision as a "national tragedy." Diocese of Providence spokesman William Halpin didn’t return calls seeking comment. (Keeping a low profile on the issue isn’t restricted to the Catholic Church. The Reverend John Holt, executive minister of the Rhode Island Council of Churches, didn’t return calls seeking comment for this story, either.)

Meanwhile, Rhode Island — like much of the nation — has become more libertarian when it comes to supporting equal rights for gays and lesbians. Before the 2002 mayoral election, for example, the conventional wisdom held that a plurality of Providence voters would never elect an openly gay mayor. Cicilline — who made a point of running on the issues, not as a practitioner of identity politics — certainly benefited from the public appetite for reform in the post-Plunder Dome era. Nonetheless, it was still something of a surprise when he trounced (with 53 percent of the vote) such conventional candidates as former mayor Joseph R. Paolino Jr. and state Senator David V. Igliozzi in the decisive Democratic primary.

Similarly, although the General Assembly might not be seen as a bastion of progressive values, the legislature compares well with those in many states when it comes to having passed in the ’90s, for example, a law banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. "The General Assembly, certainly, has moved a long way since they started talking and learning about the lives of gay and lesbian people 20 years ago," Monteiro says. "The Rhode Island legislature now has a fairly long history of listening, learning, and really doing its best to try to rectify discrimination. We believe that our General Assembly is at a place where it takes this issue very seriously and will take the issue of civil marriage under strong consideration this year."

Then again, even though Monteiro and like-minded activists disdain the more palatable political prospect of Vermont-style civil unions, rapping it as inferior, separate but equal treatment, it’s no coincidence that legislative supporters plan to once again introduce bills in the new General Assembly session next month for both civil marriage and civil unions. Even if they philosophically support equal rights, legislators are likely to be cautious, mindful of how reactionary anger has been directed against public officials in Hawaii and Vermont after enhanced legal status has been enacted for gays and lesbians. Maureen Moakley, chairwoman of the political science department at the University of Rhode Island, describes the outlook this way: "My guess would be that, depending on what kind of play the issue gets nationally, we will see next year [or not long after] civil union legislation passing in the state of Rhode Island." But, she adds, "It’s not a slam dunk."

Polls show that younger Americans are more supportive than their elders of equal rights for gays and lesbians, suggesting that it may just be a matter of time before the ongoing cultural shift toward civil marriage takes wider root. For now, though, the drive toward equity for same-sex couples shares much in common with the civil rights movement. Even after the groundbreaking decision in Massachusetts, progress is unlikely to occur without a more widespread and sustained organizing effort. As Cicilline notes, it took close to 10 years for the General Assembly to pass the measure outlawing discrimination in housing, employment, and other basic areas because of sexual orientation. Now, he says, "It will take time for people to recognize this is really a very basic issue about whether it is right to discriminate against people because they are gay or lesbian, and the answer to that is, no."

THE MASSACHUSETTS Supreme Judicial Court, in its November 18 ruling, gave the legislature in that state 180 days to adhere to the civil marriage decision. Just what will happen, however, remains unclear. Opponents are trying to enact a Vermont-style civil union statute in Massachusetts, and to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely "the union of one man and one woman."

As Kristen Lombardi recently reported in the Boston Phoenix, advocates in Massachusetts don’t see a measure authorizing civil unions as a threat to equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. The gay-marriage constitutional amendment, though, is viewed as a potentially problematic obstacle. Supporters and opponents of civil marriage, as well as national advocacy groups, are actively raising money and girding for the battle to come.

In Rhode Island, a similar, although less intensive, lobbying effort will play out after the new General Assembly session starts in January. To help drive the message home, organizers plan to encourage gays and lesbians to speak with their legislators. "First, it’s a matter of education," says Marti Rosenberg, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Ocean State Action. "Whenever someone talks to their legislator and says, ‘You might not have known this, but I’m a lesbian, or I’m a gay man, and I’ve had a partner for X number of years, and these are the challenges we’ve had to face,’ it presents a tremendous educational opportunity, explaining the various legal issues at stake here. People get caught up in the word ‘marriage,’ but the issue at stake here is civil rights. They’re civil rights like we usually think of civil rights, but also governmental rights."

Opponents on the other side of the issue are likely to launch their own mobilization efforts, perhaps with support from national groups. For now, though, Catholics For Life’s McOsker says, "We’re waiting to see what happens."

Critics of expanding civil marriage to encompass gays and lesbians have a powerful ally in Governor Donald L. Carcieri, who recently told Providence Journal political columnist M. Charles Bakst that he would oppose any legislative effort to approve it. Carcieri, who could not be reached for comment this week by the Phoenix, told Bakst, "I think marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. It’s not religious with me. It’s about philosophical public policy . . . To me, it’s an institution that was created for a purpose, and I think we should protect that." Asked about the ostensible purpose, the governor responded, "Generally, the concept was creating a family."

Monteiro, of the Rhode Island Lesbian and Gay Alliance for Civil Rights, holds out some hope that Carcieri may be more flexible than his recent comments suggest. "If you look at Governor Carcieri’s stated opposition, he’s been kind of all over the map on it," she says. "His position really is one of caution and maybe not having thought through all of the impacts. So we have a real hope that Governor Carcieri, when he talks to more LBGT families, will change his position."

Some legislative leaders, like Majority Leader Gordon Fox (D-Providence) have sounded supportive of gay rights in their recent public comments. For now, though, the mood at the legislature remains somewhat pensive. Larry Berman, spokesman for House Speaker William Murphy (D-West Warwick), notes that related legislation has yet to be introduced for the new session. "We haven’t really seen it yet," he says, "so it’s hard to comment, but we certainly expect it to be an issue that’s brought forward in this session, and we will give it a full and fair analysis and consideration."

URI’s Moakley believes when it comes to consideration of civil unions in the General Assembly, "I don’t think you’re going to see any visible opposition. The question is what happens in committee. I think the politics is going to be somewhat behind the scenes and it’s going to play itself out in the committees."

State Senator Rhoda Perry (D-Providence), who has sponsored related legislation in recent years, acknowledges, "I don’t think it’s going to be easy," to pass a civil marriage bill, "but there are many people who recognize the unfairness of the legal sanctions that pertain to a family when it comes to the institution of marriage. The bottom line is that this [decision in Massachusetts] is a watershed in the history of New England, Rhode Island, and the nation."

Social progress rarely comes, though, without some setbacks, and civic unions remain far more appealing to politicians than expanding full marital rights to gays and lesbians, even if this, understandably, offers no solace to activists like Monteiro. "Civil unions purport to be separate but equal," she says. "We have learned through a long history that separate is always separate and never equal in this country."

For all the overheated rhetoric about how gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage, gays and lesbians can always point out — as a member of the Republican Log Cabin Club tartly noted recently in rebutting an anti-gay rights activist on one of the cable news networks — outlawing infidelity and divorce might be more effective remedies. Perhaps it’s this appreciation for human foibles that helps Cicilline to take the long-term view. "My guess is that Rhode Island, like most other states, will begin by embracing civil unions," he says, and the ensuing comfort level will make it easier to build eventual support for civil marriage.

Ian Donnis can be reached at idonnis[a]phx.com