by Jennifer Matos

BOSTON – July 1, 2006

History seems to have shown that during an election term, a sure way to initiate debate is to discuss the issue of whether or not lesbians and gays should have the right to marry.

In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the debate is alive once again, and is especially prevalent as it is the only State where gay marriage is legal. Last week, Governor Mitt Romney, Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley, a handful of lawmakers, and gay marriage opponents stood together to voice support for a proposed 2008 ballot issue that would define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The issue could be revived once again next month when the Constitutional Convention reconvenes. Romney didn’t stop there. According to The Boston Herald, Romney said that he shared O’Malley’s belief that same sex-marriages should be banned and went on to say legalized gay marriage is “a huge error and wrong” and “The ideal setting of society overall, is a setting where there’s a mother and father.”

Candidates for the office of the governor are weighing in, too. Even though he does not support a ban on same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, Attorney General and gubernatorial hopeful, Tom Reily said that state legislators should vote on whether or not to allow a ballot measure that would end same-sex marriages. Reily’s opponent, Democrat Patrick Deval said "I'm not in the Legislature but I wish they wouldn't" [vote on the matter]. "I think we've had enough of this debate. I've been married for 22 years in a straight marriage; there's nothing about gay marriage that threatens my marriage."

The debate on gay marriage was brought to court again last week when Rhode Island residents, Mary Norton and Mary Baker fought to gain the right to marry in Massachusetts. They had filed an application to be married, but that application was denied based on a 1913 law that states: “No marriage shall be contracted in this commonwealth by a party residing and intending to continue to reside in another jurisdiction if such marriage would be void if contracted in such other jurisdiction, and every marriage contracted in this commonwealth in violation hereof shall be null and void.” They have taken their fight to the courts because statutes in Rhode Island do not explicitly ban gay marriage.

In another interesting story, a married Massachusetts lesbian couple is finding that just because their union is legal, doesn’t mean that it is being treated equally. The couple, wed two years ago, was applying for a passport so they could vacation on the Turks and Caicos islands. Joan and Vicki Bagnell had their names legally changed after their wedding, applying for and receiving new licenses and Social Security cards. When they applied for their passport in the hopes of having their married name on them, a spokeswoman for the State Department said that gay married couples can wait until five years after their name change and then apply for a new passport. Their other option, they were told, was to file an application using their old names, with their married name listed in a special “also known as” category. The Bagnells chose the latter.

The debate, overall, is especially poignant to consider this Fourth of July holiday weekend. The Preamble to The Declaration of Independence, signed 230 years ago eloquently states:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

It seems that some contemporary legislators have taken issue with exactly who is entitled to the rights to live freely.