NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: Day to Day
Interview: Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts discusses the latest developments in the gay marriage debate
12 March 2004
MADELEINE BRAND, host:
Across the country in Massachusetts, lawmakers are closer to banning gay marriage. On Thursday, they stopped just short of approving a compromise that would define marriage as a heterosexual union but allow for civil unions for gays and lesbians. Legislators plan to take up the issue again at the end of the month. And joining us now is US Congressman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who is also gay.
Welcome to the program, Congressman.
Representative BARNEY FRANK (Democrat, Massachusetts): Thank you for having me on.
BRAND: Now, you said San Francisco's decision to challenge California's state law was a bad idea because it could damage the cause for legal gay marriage in Massachusetts. And now given yesterday's action in Boston, do you believe that's what happened?
Rep. FRANK: It may have contributed some. I should be clear, I did not object to San Francisco challenging the law. I think it's important to challenge the law. If people in Massachusetts hadn't brought a lawsuit challenging the law, we wouldn't have had the victory that we had. The question is, how do you do it?
I think the best way to challenge the law is by a lawsuit in which several people who want to get married say, 'You're denying me my constitutional rights.' What I thought was politically damaging to our cause, both in Massachusetts and in Congress, was for San Francisco and then, as was predictable, several other cities to say, 'We're just going to ignore the law.' The San Francisco thing happened just before some key votes in Massachusetts, and I think it contributed to a sense that, well, this thing is out of control. An amendment similar to the one that passed yesterday in Massachusetts was defeated previously in Massachusetts. And it wasn't just San Francisco, as I said, it was five or six other municipalities doing the same thing that I think contributed a sense of some fear that cost us a few votes.
BRAND: So you're saying that the image of sort of lawlessness and disobedience on the part of San Francisco's mayor and mayors in New York state inspired lawmakers both in states...
Rep. FRANK: Well, it's twofold. The notion that you can violate the law to change it--the problem there is, we have a governor of Massachusetts who's now apparently contemplating doing that with regard to our Supreme Court decision. And we're going to be fighting that hard.
I think it's very important to win this fight for same-sex marriage to go into effect, because once it has been effect in a state--Massachusetts will be the one for a while--we're going to be able to show people that all these fears that were stirred up were just unreal. Our governor is talking about, frankly, doing civil disobedience in effect on the other way to try to stop the issuance of marriages. I want to be able to argue against that without appearing inconsistent.
Beyond that, what cost us some votes, I think, in Massachusetts and is losing us some people in the federal Congress who are now cosponsoring this is, we were arguing, look, we have an orderly process here. We have a constitutional decision by a court that's going to be debated in the Legislature, we're going to be able to decide on same-sex marriage in a very regular way. The notion that no, no, it's out of control, it's popping up, anybody can do whatever he or she wants lent some support to those who said, 'We'd better put a lid on this.'
BRAND: Now many gay marriage supporters equate their cause with the '60s civil rights struggle, where civil disobedience was used to change certain laws. What do you think of that analogy?
Rep. FRANK: Oh, I think it's a very good idea to use civil disobedience. I wish people understood better how it was used. Martin Luther King, with the guidance of, for instance, Bayard Rustin, a very distinguished strategic thinker who was both black and gay, used civil disobedience in a much more strategic way. And what they did in many cases was use civil disobedience so you could get the lawsuit. In some cases, by the way, you could not bring the lawsuit unless there was civil disobedience to trigger it. Different laws have different--in fact, you couldn't have done that without it.
On the other hand, Martin Luther King also was very careful to say, 'Wait a minute, let's decide to do it in one place, not another--you don't do it all at once.' In this case, though--and this is the point I want to make--civil disobedience could work against us. We are going to achieve marriage in Massachusetts. In a couple of months, same-sex couples will be validly married in Massachusetts. We will then have a chance to show the country what that reality is. It's our opponents who will be trying to use civil disobedience to derail that until they can get it voted out. I don't want to give them any comfort.
BRAND: Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, thank you very much for speaking with us.
Rep. FRANK: Thanks for the opportunity.
BRAND: This is DAY TO DAY from NPR News.