The panel discussion: The homosexual movement in Massachusetts in 2005

Moderator: To much of the country, marriage can be seen as a radical question. Do you have a unique perspective, for four years you've lived through this, and the conversations and the reactions. How has it changed as it has over these years?

Julie Goodridge: Two weeks after we were married, I went to the Dunkin' Donuts in Jamaica Plain. I hadn't had a shower, I was searching through my pocket book trying to find some change, and an Irish Catholic guy who's about 70 turned around and said to me, "So, has it calmed down at all for you?" And I proceeded to have a conversation with him about what it felt like to be married, and I can tell you that that was not a conversation I would've had with this gentleman, you know, four years ago.

Moderator: (To Hillary Goodridge) You're going to answer the same question?

Hillary Goodridge: A couple weeks after we were married, Annie [Julie's daughter] and I were playing in the backyard. She got a toy caught in a tree, and I decided to show her how you get a toy down from a tree by using a broom. You know, you throw it up? So I caught the broom, with my face, and fifteen minutes later we were going to the emergency room. The same hospital I was denied access to Annie when she was in neonatal intensive care and Julie when she was in postop, and on the way there, you know, we were just so excited cause there was blood everywhere, and we get in and the nurse was doing the intake interview, and I'm asked for the first time since I was married, "Are you married?" And, you know my lips were just huge, and I said (with a deep voice) "Yes." And I'm trying to smile, and the nurse says, "Is your husband in the waiting room?" And I got to say (with deep voice) "It's my wife, and she's out there in the waiting room." And he just looked at me and smiled and said, "Of course, I'll go get her." And, you know, that is a teeny little big end for the much huger conversation about the security of being married and just what it means to be equal. (Audience applauds)

Moderator: What's your take on what role marriage played in the election from the Massachusetts perspective? We thought it was going to dominate local legislative races. Did it or didn't it?

Marty Rouse: It played little or none. But first a little history. Everyone remembers what happened in Vermont in 2000 when Vermont passed Civil Unions. That November, seventeen legislators lost their seats and the house went Republican. There was a huge anti-Civil Unions backlash in Vermont, and we at MassEquality were committed to making sure something like that did not happen.

And what happened in the primaries, in September, for those of you who remember, in September, not only was every legislator that voted for equal marriage reelected, but we knocked out two anti-gay incumbents in the primary. For those of you who know Massachusetts politics, we were warned by so many people, "don't even try to knock out an incumbent. You can never knock out an incumbent." We knocked out two incumbents, and you can hear in the State House: "They got Vinnie! They got Vinnie! Who are they going to get next?!?" (Audience laughs, cheers, and applauds)

And in this very election, we had fifty legislators that we had to defend. There were fifty legislators who voted with us that were facing challengers who were going to go against us. And our goal, our number one goal was to make sure that each and every one of those was reelected. On election day, not only was every single one of those reelected, they were reelected by strong, strong margins, and in fact it was the opponents of equal marriage rights who just survived by the skin on their teeth. We almost knocked some out Election Day. We did terrific on Election Day, and we deserve to be proud of that. (Audience cheers and applauds)

And we feel, we feel well positioned for next year, but we know we have a long way ahead of us, and so working together we know that we feel confident that we can be successful next year but have a long way to go.

Moderator: Thanks Marty, but just if I could follow up, looking outside of Massachusetts, what other kind of positive beacons of hope are out there in this legislative seasons and the elections.

Marty Rouse: Now I know a lot of people are aware of the eleven anti- gay amendments that were passed nationwide. But I want to let you know on a little secret. In legislative races…can you all keep a secret?

Audience: (laughs) NO!!!

Marty Rouse: In legislative races around the country, we are winning, folks. We are winning. Not just in Massachusetts, but in Vermont, on Tuesday, November 2nd, legislators...seventeen pro-civil unions legislators were elected. Not one pro-civil unions legislator was defeated. In Connecticut, we picked up seats…pro-marriage seats in Connecticut. In Rhode Island we did well. In Iowa we did well. In Colorado, we took back both chambers in Colorado. In Montana, we took back the Senate in Montana. Unheard of! We are doing well all across the state. In Minnesota, in so many legislative chambers, where marriage as decided as a state issue, we are doing very, very well, so we are well positioned to cross the country into the future. (Audience applauds)

Moderator: Where do you think the Goodridge decision figured in all of this, from a national perspective?

Mary Bonauto: I do want to talk about this, just because I know it's been on people's minds. I think a lot of people are heartbroken about the Kerry loss, and there's no shortage of people out there saying, "It was Goodridge, it was Gavin Newsom who cost Kerry the election. Look at these eleven amendments, etc…"

I'm here because I think the facts are very important. The spin from the Right Wing has been intense. And their goal is to strike fear into our arms and to those of our allies, and to divide and conquer. We cannot let them do that, and I think the facts can really shore all of us up. I have so many facts I could be laying on you.

First, let's talk about that 22% of "Moral Issues" voters. Lets talk about them. Saying that that was the most important thing for them in voting for President. First of all, neither pollsters nor seasoned political observers even know what that term means. It's never been asked in that way before. There was no definition given. So, according for the Center for American Progress, and their about to release a poll, 42% of these "Morals" voters apparently have said that the War in Iraq was the most important moral issue when they cast their vote. And 13% chose abortion, and fewer than 10% chose gay marriage.

Now, let's talk about abortion and gay marriage. Kerry's pollster, in an article last week, actually an op-ed he wrote, said "You know what, Kerry had the majority of abortion and marriage voters. When that was their top concern, I won them." Boy, does that turn the conventional wisdom on its head. Moral issues actually placed third in this election. What placed first is if you combined Iraq and Terrorism, it got to 34%. If you combined the related issues of Economy and Taxes, it got to 25%. Moral Issues were third.

Let's talk about the Evangelical vote for a second, since there's been so much discussion about that. Here are the facts: In 2000 and in 2004, Evangelical voters nationwide made up the same proportionate of the electorate: 23%. Yes, more turned out, but so did a lot of other people. So this is why, I think, just some of the better facts, I think, that point out why even Time Magazine says now gay marriage / moral issues is one of the myths of the 2004 election. So rest assured, I think it's all important for us to get the information out there that this 22% of Moral voters was not 22% of the electorate voting for President Bush to stop gay marriage.

Quite the contrary, when you look at the national exit polls, you'll see that 62% of people nationwide understand that there is a problem, that we have no relationship recognition. 62% of people nationwide said they support either marriage or civil unions. What that says is across this country is a rich vein of fairness, and it is that vein of fairness which we need to tap.

I wanted to talk for a minute about the eleven amendments. To the extent that these eleven amendments - the idea behind them was to drive up Bush numbers. I have to say, it wasn't a particularly great strategy. Of these eleven states, eight were already solid red states…you know, Mississippi? (Audience laughs) Other were blue states, Oregon and Michigan, that voted for these amendments, but also voted for Kerry. The one question mark is Ohio, but again, even Kerry did better in Ohio than Gore did four years ago, even with marriage on the ballot.

Well, lets talk about, even the more sensitive issue, if you will, about these amendments. And are they a backlash to the Goodridge decision? Are they a backlash to Gavin Newsom? You know, from my perspective, having, you know, been at GLAD forever now, can I just say, like, this is not the backlash, this is the lash! (Audience laughs) The whip! (Audience applauds)

In 1996, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act was passed. You know, in, on November 18, 2003, how many state DOMAs, and constitutional amendments did we have? Thirty-seven. Before we ever won the right to marry, the federal amendment, which President Bush is supporting, was drafted in response to Vermont, not in response to Massachusetts. There are people in the country who are determined to make sure we have no rights. Not for its individuals, and not for our families. This is more of the lash, not a backlash, and ten of those eleven states already have DOMAs on their books, and I just think it's a really important context here. The other important piece of context, I think, is that, you know, for over thirty years, we have been fighting, and often losing, referendum battles, starting with Anita Bryant in the 1970's.

Some Audience Members: Yes! Boo!

Mary Bonauto: And you know, this is an enormous challenge for our community. We often lose these things. It's completely easy to manipulate the questions, to phrase them in ambiguous ways; Ways that people don't understand. Lots of you know if those exit polls are true, lots of people voted for amendments not understanding that what they were going to do is deny rights to a lot of us.

So, from my perspective, and the national map, we are absolutely, still, moving in the right direction here. We had some setbacks in some states, some predictable states, by and large. But we are also having enormous gains in other states, and we're going to have this ongoing patchwork where we're able to make gains in some states, lose in others, but ultimately the places were we make gains lift the boat of equality for all, and make it possible for people in these, some of these red states and other amendment states, to have rights for themselves as individuals and as families much sooner because we've done what we've done here than they would ever get done had they been left alone. (Audience applauds)

Moderator: At Freedom to Marry, having done so much education work over the years, what you see that telling us about the future of Massachusetts and elsewhere in the country?

Joshua Friedes: I think when we started our work, and it was 12 years ago, Freedom to Marry Coalition and GLAD shared a common philosophy, and that was we were only going to succeed if we could get people to tell their personal stories, and that is what we have tried to do. And not too long ago we actually did a poll, and we asked who is most credible, and you know, we expected it to be any number of things, but what it was gay and lesbian people we know, and we didn't ask the question about, you know, straight people, and we should have, but overwhelmingly people said they listen to gay and lesbian people they know; not clergy members, not the Governor, not elected officials. So, the most important people need to tell their personal stories, gay or straight.

The second thing that I think we learned is this is a social change that takes time, and we started twelve years ago, and its only recently in Massachusetts that more people say in polls they support gay marriage than oppose gay marriage. So it should be no surprise in states like Mississippi where there isn't a vibrant Freedom to Marry movement, and they haven't been able to do the education work that we did here, that we're seeing this "lash."

The third thing that I think is very important, especially in other states, is the realization that, we have a gay civil rights bill in Massachusetts, and that allowed people to speak honestly about themselves.

And we need to get a national employment non-discrimination law passed (audience applauds). Then, and only then are people going to be able to do what we should all be able to do which is to advocate for ourselves, and I really want to salute those visionaries, who back in 1989, you know, allowed Massachusetts to become the second state in the Union with a gay civil rights bill, because we were able to speak openly and honestly about our lives, and we know when we speak openly and honestly about our lives, people support us.

So we now just have to continue doing the work that we have done, and my people in particular, to get involved and speak to the media. One of the things that I personally believe is that the media doesn't change people's minds, but it's a catalyst, and I think that every time Hillary and Julie and my dear friends Ed and Mike and the other plaintiff couples were in the media, what happened is people went back home to gay and lesbian people they knew or other people and they said "what do you think? Is this true?" And that sparked the conversation that got us to where we are today, so I salute you, because this is a victory that you made. (Audience applauds)

Moderator: Thanks, Josh. We're now ready to open it up for questions from the floor.

Question: [Asks Mary Bonauto what was her favorite part of the brief she wrote for same-sex marriage, which she submitted before the SJC.]

Mary Bonauto: I can't single out a paragraph, but I'll just say this: it's been important in the lawsuit, as in life, and as in everything that you are doing, going forward to try to reach the movable middle; the people who care about fairness in this country, to make it clear this is not an abstract legal question. It's not just about equality; it's about people's lives. And these seven couples have been able to put forth who they were and let us really made all the difference, and I encourage you to do the same, talk about the commitment, talk about the responsibilities you take on, and talk about the ways you have been concretely harmed by being denied marriage rights in the past. (Audience applauds)

Moderator: somebody in the back there?

Question: I just wanted to add one other great victory that we had on election day which shows there's a little rose in the desert. An openly lesbian Latino woman in Dallas won Sheriff and if that can happen in Texas, there's no stopping us (Audience applauds). But I do have a question. Mary, on some of the more draconian initiatives [the 11 amendments] that passed that specifically targeted gay people, do you think the Colorado Roma decision is going to automatically negate those?

Mary Bonauto: Listen, these amendments, most of them are positively awful, and a whole new generation are going to turn out wholesale because often what they have done is mix the issue of marriage with the issue of civil unions and individual contracts, protections, and kinds of other things about which voters could reasonably have very different kinds of positions. So I think the first like of attack, if you will, is just to set them aside entirely because it abides to the state election laws, and unfortunately it is hard to set those things aside in advance because of their court systems. Unless it passes. If it passes then come back and we'll have a conversation about it. So I think that'll be the first line of defense, but ultimately, I'm not saying it is short term, but in the long term I think we are going to get to that point, where, at some point, as the final arbiter in our system, the Supreme Court is going to have say "It's simply not fair and it's not right to deny [these rights to people]."

Marty Rouse: I want to add about the open lesbian Latino in Texas. We've had victories all across the country. There was an open lesbian elected in Idaho to the legislature. There was an open lesbian elected to the North Carolina legislature. There was an open lesbian elected to the Missouri legislature. I don't like saying "red states" and "blue states." We have to be active and visible everywhere to make a difference. And while it's great to have openly gay people speaking for us and it's extremely important in the legislature, let's not forget it's straight people, by and large, in legislatures who will make the difference for us in our battles. And we have to work with straight people, educate straight people, and find really good candidates to run and win. And that's what happened in Vermont; why there were so many victories in Vermont; we looked and found excellent candidates. And we're going to find really good candidates in Massachusetts in two years as well.

Moderator: Back in the back.

Question: I think while I also felt it was heartbreaking for Kerry to lose so closely, but I also would be curious from the political side whether you agree that the conversation has also moved radically. Even somebody as horrible as George Bush, who was ashamed to say that he was against certain things, and our candidate was someone who had voted against DOMA which I don't think would've happened four years ago. I'm curious whether the panel takes a similar view that, that even the Republican Party seems to have shifted on this? Nationally, not just locally.

Marty Rouse: Over time, as we continue to have these conversations, as we speak to the American family, we are making a difference, and we have to continue to do that. I spoke to one of the organizers in Michigan earlier this evening and asked him, "What would you say? What do you say about what we did in Massachusetts? Did that affect you, with that anti-gay amendment in Michigan? What happened to you and what do you think?" And he said, "We are so proud of what you did in Massachusetts, you are leading the way, and we need you to continue to lead the way. (Audience applauds).

And he said "We fought as hard as we could, but you know, we're still moving forward in Michigan. We know we have a long way to go in Michigan, but every day we're getting stronger. We won seats in the Michigan legislature. We didn't defeat the amendment, but Kerry won in Michigan. And we're doing well and our Governor is being more supportive and more open. The day after the election, she came forward and said, 'We're granting domestic partnership benefits to state employees.'" That was the Governor of Michigan. So we are making an enormous…(Audience applause drowns out words).

Question: (To Goodridge couple) I know you guys live in Jamaica Plain, and I was wondering, um, how your community supported you, and whether they supported you more so than possibly some other communities in the Boston area, and how that, how that helped you out?

Julie Goodridge: Well, um, our daughter goes to private school, in a different community, and one of the things that was really interesting was that when we started being a family at that school, we felt like we were teaching, you know, "Gay 101." (Audience laughs) And we would meet people, and the people would say to Hillary: (with enthusiasm) "Oh, I just think it's so cool to have a lesbian parent in the classroom!" (Audience cheers and laughs) These very same people sent us, we had fourteen flower arrangements last November 18, and we received wedding presents, hundreds of vases (Audience laughs)….

Julie Goodridge: At any rate, we have been embraced by this larger, very conservative, parent body at the school, and it has felt phenomenal.

Hillary Goodridge: Just to reinforce what everybody else has been saying, at the beginning they were really scared. I mean, there were parents who were clearly concerned about their kid coming over to our house for a play date, you know, when the kids were in nursery school. And, in one of the "Gay 101" forums we were doing at the school, one of the mothers said, "Well, I don't know how to tell my son about gay sex." (Audience laughs) You know, I'm not going to talk about you and Doug having sex when Annie comes over to your house for a play date, what…you know…obviously it's on their mind, however…(Audience laughs and applauds). So, but I think the point of that is that there's a huge range of people who, once they get to know all of us, and understand who we are and what we're about, that they're incredibly supportive with their vases (Audience laughs and applauds).

Moderator: Another question. . .

Question: Gay marriage is a really, really important issue to me. However, in 1999, gay youth were three times more likely than their straight peers to attempt suicide, and in 2001, they were over four times more likely than their straight peers to commit suicide, and now I recently learned in 2003 they were over five times more likely than their straight peers to commit suicide. And so as a young person, I'm worried that gay marriage is starting to overshadow some of the other needs in our community, particularly the needs of our youth. And I'm wondering this, at the same time gay marriage is still really, really important; a righteous cause for me. So I'm wondering what, perhaps, some of the panelists' thoughts are?

Marty Rouse: You know, I wou…I would just start by, by saying I agree with you completely. It's an extraordinarily important issue, and I think some of our, our right-wing friends in Massachusetts have done some real harm over the past number of years in terms of funding for safe-schools programs. And they've lost the the battle, I guess, over when they infiltrated the GLSEN conference a number of years ago, but it seems like they have currently been winning the whole war, in terms of making everyone afraid to address issues of LGBT youth.

I do think ultimately addressing issues like marriage equality and everything else will benefit everyone, including our youth. But I do think we, as a community, have to focus, again, also on the concerns of youth. (Audience applauds)

Joshua Friedes: Today, is actually, across the state, a day of youth action in support of marriage equality, and there are about thirty colleges and high schools who are taking action. And you know youth have been real leaders in the marriage equality issue. You know, I myself am a refugee from Colorado. I moved here after Amendment Two, and this is kind of where I decided I would make my last stand. I'm not moving to Canada (audience laughs), no matter what happens.

And I think that one of the reasons why we need to do this is because if youth understand that they have a really bright future, and no matter what they experience now, they know that they can be who with ever they want to be, do whatever they want to be, form the families they want to form, then the ability to stand up to whatever they face when they're younger will be much better.

But right now, I know, having lived through Amendment Two in Colorado, we need to make sure that even while we're warriors in the battle for equality, we need to meet the emotional needs of young people and everybody whose been harmed and we cannot forget the emotional costs of fighting for equality. (Audience applauds)

Hillary Goodridge: I just want to say one thing that's related to the other comment about Annie's school. Once you move on from "Gay and Lesbian 101," what you find is the fact that people can deal with that now. And people in the lower schools, in the early grades, in the elementary school, are now saying "hey, we really do need to include this in our curriculum," so that kids feel safe when they're, you know, when they're realizing they're gay in third grade. And I think that it's incredibly important that this happens, kind of, from the ground up. And since they thought it was all about sex before, you know, I think it, it all works together to help the cause.

Moderator: There's one over here.

Question: I'm very concerned about the constitutional convention that's going to happen this spring, uh, because I think that, last year, there was a coalition between conservatives and progressives that caused such a good vote against the civil union constitutional proposed amendment. And I'm concerned that because, even now the President is for civil unions, what's going to happen in the spring when these conservatives are faced with the same proposed amendment? Are they now going to vote for it because they think it's the better position to vote for civil unions than marriages? I'm very concerned about that.

Marty Rouse: We're all very concerned about it, as well. When we first got started in January, we thought we were going to lose that vote in the constitutional convention by two to one. We were very, very nervous. But we hired the best lobbyists, we did grassroots activism, we kept contacting more and more people, and we have built a movement, thanks to all of you for equality in this state. And that made a difference in why we only lost by five votes earlier this March. That in itself was a victory.

We now need to move forward, and we feel confident that if we keep talking to people, and talking to legislators, we know that there were many, many legislators that wanted to vote with us but didn't vote with us because they were afraid of their own reelections. Well, they saw that their co-workers all got re-elected by large margins. So that in itself is going to help us, but we have a lot of work to do. We know that we have a chance of losing next year. But we together can make a difference, and we need to engage you in order to make sure that we protect marriage.

Question: I would like to how much damage John Kerry might have caused in the effort by openly admitting last night when he was being interviewed by ABC, that he had the same position on gay marriage as George Bush. (Audience gasps). And that set me back terribly when I heard it. I couldn't believe it. I'm not sure why he said it, or whether he actually is concealing his true belief for four years from now, or what?

Mary Bonauto: I didn't hear that. I don't watch TV, so I didn't see that. But I believe that John Kerry doesn't support marriage, and I'm as quite annoyed, here, that he didn't support marriage. But he also does not support a constitutional amendment, federally. And that is extraordinarily important, and I think it's also just, in fairness, important to point out that he is one of only fourteen senators who voted against the Federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. (Light applause) So his position was not where we needed to be, but we can keep working on him, but it's certainly far better than the sitting President's. (Audience applauds)

Question: Mary, I would like you to give us a brief synopsis of where the court cases are around the country, most importantly our 1913 case that you're working on, and Connecticut, and New Jersey, and any other Supreme Court cases that we don't know about.

Mary Bonauto: I don't think I can do that, but let me just paint a little bit of a road map of where we're going in the future, 'cause that's, I guess, how I hear, the broader part of your question.

I've said this before, let me just say it again. We didn't win marriage forever on November eighteenth last year, and we didn't lose it on November second. And we are going to have some very exciting times ahead, but our momentum is going to be clear and on the march. And, again, think about this coming year, this coming two years. We have other states where, first of all, Goodridge has been cited by trial courts, striking down state marriage laws; two in the state of Washington, one in the state of Oregon, and both of those cases are an appeal to be heard by the State Supreme Courts. And in Oregon, again because of this amendment, they can still very well end up with civil unions; another state recognizing relationships, where, again, it had not; had not prior to, part probably in here. So that's going to be very exciting.

There is an appellate case in New Jersey, as well. It's another case with a strong court, strong constitution, strong support for marriage equality in that state. There are also cases pending; ours in Connecticut, again another state where we feel there are very good prospects, although nothing is ever certain; cases in Maryland, cases in California.

But it's not all the courts, as important as the courts are in saying as they do, that "hey, a basic right has been denied here and it's our job to step in here and say so," there are also going to be various item legislative developments. Think about California, where in 2000, voters approved, an initiative to ban marriage for same sex couples in the state. How did the legislature respond? Not well! (Audience giggles) They decided to pass, first, a modest domestic partnership law providing a few rights to people, and then effective January 1 of this year, something very close to what Vermont has, providing all the rights that they can under state law to couples in this domestic partnership registry. And it is very possible that in this next year, we will see the California legislature approve of marriage for same-sex couples. (Audience cheers and applauds)

There are other places, too, where people are sick of holding back and want to take some steps to secure protection for relationships; some recognition of relationships, and I do think there are some states where they are going to be able to go forward with statewide domestic partnership registries or civil unions where there was nothing before.

And I think what is so critical for us to remember is even though those domestic partnership registries and civil unions are not the right ultimate answer -- because in the end the simplest, easiest, fairest, and best answer is marriage, the same thing everyone else has -- it is important to remember that the reason this momentum exists is because we are fighting for marriage, and we are winning, and we are changing minds, and legislators know they have to start moving in that direction.

So I think the future, although it's challenging, is also extremely promising. And I would also just add one thing that I really want to say. One of the things that somebody said to me along time ago is "much is expected from those to whom much is given." And that always makes me feel like "okay I have to work harder!" (Audience laughs) "And stay up later." And I would say that also to this crowd tonight, because we are in an extraordinary position here in Massachusetts. It is actually our obligation…I view it as our solemn obligation…to keep that beacon of fairness and equality and hope of marriage shining here in Massachusetts, and throughout the country, because it is giving people hope, and it will, ultimately, help to lift all boats. (Audience cheers and applauds)

Question: But where do we stand on the 1913 law? This is important to me because I am leaving Massachusetts and moving to another state.

Mary Bonauto: Where we stand with the 1913 law: Michelle Granda from our office is here tonight who is really doing a terrific job leading up the effort on that case. Where we stand is we were denied. We had sought preliminary relief in the trial court in front of a superior court judge, Judge Ball. She denied that relief. We basically said, "This case is controlled by Goodridge," she said "I see it as a different issue." We are taking that case up on appeal. We are technically right now in the appeals court, and we may end up staying there, although we certainly plan to try to take the case beyond the appeals court and have it settled by the Supreme Judicial Court. In our view, really and honestly, this is controlled by Goodridge, and there are also other reasons why this 1913 law, not enforced for years, cannot suddenly spring into life, solely for the purpose, really, of barring same-sex couples from marriage, and we're going to have to sort it out in the courts. And I think all of us at GLAD, in some ways, see this 1913 law and other things that are going on here we have faced, starting on November 18 of last year, as just ongoing resistance to the fact that we do in fact, here in Massachusetts, have marriage equality, and there are still people who want to set us back, and that case is an example of it. So, we're not done with the appeal yet, but we're en route.

Question: I'm a lesbian parent. It seems to me that in the early 90's, when we won the right to co-adopt our kids, it raised a contradiction. Kathy and I had two kids, but we weren't married, and that left our kids in a certain amount of jeopardy. I wonder if you'd comment on how that earlier decision helped to get us to where we arrived a year ago?

Mary Bonauto: One of the arguments advanced by the Commonwealth for continuing to deny marriage rights was that opposite sex couples provide the optimal setting for child rearing. And I guess one way of saying it is you could almost hear the ridicule dripping off the tongues of the justices during the oral arguments, saying "how can we do exactly what you said on the one hand, recognize that same-sex couples can be, in fact, the perfect parents for children, but then say it's not optimal for those children?" It happens to be optimal for those children.

One of the things I thought was so important about the Goodridge decision was that it actually did not get into all the social science data. The data's on our side; it really is. But it didn't even rely on the data. What the decision said is "if you care about kids," and we do, and "you care about promoting the welfare of children," and of course we do, and we of course never contested that, either, "then denying marriage to same-sex couples and promoting child rearing are two ships passing in the night with no logical connection to one another," because let's just think about it. Denying Hillary and Julie the chance to marry does nothing to promote optimal child rearing for Annie. All it does is make her and her parents illegitimate. I guess, "Is there anything for the child in that family (audience laughs, drowns out words)optimal child-rearing to deny Hillary and Julie marriage?" That was one of the beautiful things about Goodridge, is the relentless logic to say all of these canards that are pulled out all the time to deny us rights simply make no sense.

Question: I'm a parent of a deceased gay son, and a speaker for PFLAG. And I wanted to respond to the young man's comments. We are getting more requests for, for speaking engagements. This may be part of a backlash; however, it's getting us into more schools. Chelmsford has a new faculty training, and I spoke in Peabody recently, the first time Peabody had ever had a speaker. So we are doing the work, and I recently came across statistics from 1997, and that was around 46% attempted suicide, and now I think it's 32…well, I'm sorry, 2001 is the most recent that I have. So it is getting better. I don't know what the latest is, but I just don't want people to be terribly worried. We see that things are getting better, especially when we do community things. However, we need more speakers, (Audience laughs) straight and gay. Please come out! (Audience laughs and applauds).

Moderator: We have time for two more questions.

Question: After thirty-two years, Tom said yes, and we went to Spain and on October 2nd, Spain legalized same-sex marriage while there. It was great! My question is, worst-case scenario, [if] two years from now Massachusetts voters saying vote it down [referring to a ban on gay marriage]. What happens to all those folks that have been married in Massachusetts during that time? Do they, all of a sudden, become unmarried?

Joshua Friedes: You're saying if the voters actually approve the constitutional amendment that's on the ballot? You know, I think we'd be prepared to argue that no, that doesn't happen. But it's a question the courts often call "questions of first impression," and we would have to build the arguments, and I think there are good ones, to say that those marriages would remain intact. But I hope we're not going to face that.

Marty Rouse: If I could add one thing; not only could it appear on the ballot if we lose the constitutional convention, even if we win next year at the constitutional convention, there is a mechanism by which it could still be on the ballot November 2008. So we are in the long struggle here, this is not over, and we need your help and support in the long run.

Moderator: The last question over here.

Question: I've been talking a lot about the importance of telling our stories to our communities and our families, and also the state of Mississippi has been mentioned a couple of times, and I have it on good authority that you've told your story to your family and friends in Mississippi, and I was wondering if you could tell us about that experience?

Hillary Goodridge: The planted question! (Audience laughs) A lot of Julie's family actually is from Mississippi, and they actually were responsible for bringing the Catholic Church to this town called Lumberton, Mississippi. It's smack in the middle of the state. Last November 18, Julie was really concerned about what her family members were hearing from their priest down there. So she called Father Ken, and I thought this was about the dumbest thing she'd ever done. "Let's call a Catholic Priest in Lumberton, Mississippi to see what he thinks about gay marriage?" Okay, Julie…. (Audience laughs) And not only did Father Ken call us back, but after we were married in May, we got the following note: "Dear Julie and Hillary, Aunt Fritz was at scripture study and told me you two were married. Awesome. (Audience awwws) I pray God bless your union and make you one heart and one mind while keeping fresh and alive all those qualities in each other that helped you to fall in love from the beginning. My prayers and good wishes go with you on your journey together. Peace, Father Ken, from Our Lady of Perpetual Health, Lumberton, Mississippi." (Audience awwws, cheers, and applauds).

---End---