by Jennifer Matos

NORTHAMPTON – June 7, 2006

When Gina Smith and Heidi Norton were legally wed two years ago along with other gay couples in Massachusetts, it looked like their battle for the right to be married was behind them.

Last week, statements by President Bush made it clear that a new battle was just beginning.

Despite the fact that the proposed amendment failed in the Senate due to inadequate votes, the debate on gay marriage and the way in which these unions are to be defined and recognized is once again a hot topic.  The timing of the emergence of this issue is especially convenient, with mid-term elections not far behind, and the GOP hoping to gain some political ground.

Senator Wayne Allard, R-Colorado, supports the amendment and acknowledges that politics play a part in this debate.  However, he believes it would force senators to take a stand on the issue where their voters are concerned.  He goes on to further suggest “We ought to have a vote on the amendment every year.”

A daunting and uneven suggestion, given the fact that such a vote would impact families like the Nortonsmith’s indefinitely.  When heterosexual unions are not being called into question and gay unions are, it begins to resemble schoolyard bullying.  Needless to say, families like the Nortonsmith’s, who were among the seven plaintiffs in the case that brought about legalized gay marriage, have had enough.

In a recent interview with her hometown newspaper, Gina Nortonsmith stated “It kind of feels like when you don’t have anybody else to beat up, we’re the ones to beat up on.”

While Bush claims “a constitutional amendment would not take this issue away from the states [but] away from the courts and put it directly before the American people”, opponents say otherwise.  According to representatives of the gay advocacy group GLAAD, the amendment, if passed, could invalidate current Massachusetts gay marriages and would prevent future unions from ever taking place.

Bush argues that “Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them.  And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure.”  Even the Pope has weighed in, sharing his sentiments, naming heterosexual marriages as the “pillar of humanity”.  During a statement to the Pontifical Council for the Family, Pope Benedict said “It’s well known that legal solutions like so-called ‘civil unions’ are gaining ever greater acceptance, even if, while they exclude the responsibilities of marriage, they claim the same rights.”

Tell that to the more than 8,000 gay families that have been legally joined by marriage in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  Tell that to the countless other couples who plan on being married and making homes for their children, adopted children, and foster children.  Last week, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) urged those who do not believe that discrimination should be written into the Constitution to call the White House Comment Line at (202) 456-1111.

For gay marriage or against it, one thing is for sure: this war is far from over.