FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 13, 2001

GLAD Opposes Anti-Gay Ballot Initiatives

BOSTON—In formal filings today with Attorney General Thomas Reilly, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) asked the Office to reject two anti-gay ballot initiatives for failing to meet constitutional requirements by making sweeping changes to many laws.

According to GLAD, the ballot initiatives could, among other things, threaten existing laws that protect children who live in non-traditional households, throw into doubt existing workplace benefits extended to same-sex couples and others, and prevent the legislature, the courts, and cities and towns from taking any future action to grant protections to individuals who are not married.

Individuals and organizations supporting GLAD’s legal argument in opposition to certification include a wide variety of labor unions, civil rights organizations, clergy, the Mayors of Boston, Cambridge, Newburyport, Somerville and Springfield, former Attorney General James Shannon, David B. Cohen of Newton, Mary Clare Higgins of Northampton, the Massachusetts Municipal Association, Tax Equity Alliance for Massachusetts, the American Association of University Women, National Association of Social Workers, Massachusetts Chapter and others.

“The changes they seek are far broader than a ban on marriage for same-sex couples,” said Jennifer Levi, staff attorney at GLAD. “They also seek to ban the extension of any marriage-like benefits, protections, and responsibilities to any individuals who are living in non-marital family relationships.  This would affect unmarried couples, and depending on the issue, could also affect the rights relatives have in relation to each other and the rights of a married person vis-à-vis some other person.”

“Any petition that would do something as significant as change our Constitution must meet rigorous legal requirements,” said Mary Bonauto, GLAD Civil Rights Director.  “We are confident that the Attorney General will seriously consider this matter and make a decision consistent with the delicate balance our forebears struck regarding what matters are appropriate for public lawmaking and which are off limits.  We believe these petitions do not comply with the constitutional rules and defy our state’s strong tradition of protecting minority interests.”

On August 1, a group calling itself Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage filed two ballot initiatives which would change the state constitution to deny gay and lesbian couples the right to marry.

For example, the Petitions would forbid any legislative action in such far-reaching areas as tax, inheritance rights, support obligations, workers compensation benefits, access to family insurance policies, interpretation of wills, and child custody matters.  At the same time, the Petitions could also restrict the ability of courts to address conflicts that arise in the same wide-ranging areas of the law.  They would also explicitly preclude any issuance of workplace benefits such as health insurance and bereavement leave to public employees in non-marital relationships.

While the Massachusetts Constitution provides for citizen initiated petitions for legislation and constitutional amendments, it has strict requirements regarding what topics are open for public debate.  The amendment process, which was adopted in 1918, included restrictions on public lawmaking particularly where minority rights are at issue. Petitions which address matters relating to powers of courts or are inconsistent with individual rights may not be the subject of a statewide election.

The Attorney General must decide whether petitions meet the constitutional strictures for initiative petitions.  Opposition to ballot initiatives must be submitted by August 13. The Attorney General will decide whether or not to certify petitions by the first Wednesday in September.

GLAD filed suit in April in Suffolk Superior Court on behalf of seven same-sex couples from five counties across the state who were denied marriage licenses.  The Attorney General answered the Complaint in May, and the case, Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, will move forward in the Superior Court.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England’s leading legal rights organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.