The hearing before the Joint Committee of the Judiciary gave the public a chance to testify about a number of bills.

Among them was "The Protection of Marriage Bill" (H3375), which amends Massachusetts law to say marriage "shall be defined as a legal relationship between one man and one woman, who consent to take each other exclusively as husband and wife" and that "any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage, or its legal equivalent, or receive the benefits exclusive to marriage."

Catherine Pakaluk, of St. Paul’s Cathedral Parish in Worcester, likened the legal status of marriage and its benefits to black berets, once reserved for the elite Rangers, but now being given to all soldiers in the Army to increase morale, thus eliminating both the honor and the power to increase morale.

She said social distinctions are not judgments on persons but on the objective order of things; marriage is given a special place in the law because "a permanent, complete and exclusive relationship between a man and a woman is the ideal place for children to come into the world." She suggested that saying every way is equally good would be like telling her adopted 8-year old, "It’s just as good that your mother died and I am here to take her place."

"By giving privileges to marriage, the state provides incentives for citizens to bring children into the world in the ideal situation," the Harvard University economics student concluded. "If we remove these incentives we can expect further decline in the family, with all of the adverse social consequences which that implies."

The Catholic vision is that marriage is "a partnership of one man and one woman who are joined together for their own mutual good and for the procreation and education of children," Gerald D’Avolio, executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, said, speaking for the states Catholic bishops. He said they were there to defend "the longstanding definition of marriage," not to "attack the honor or motivation" of those seeking to change it.

The defense of marriage is "an urgent necessity for the well being of children and families and for the common good of society," he said. He said the right to define marriage as anything other than the union between a man and woman lacks any support in the traditions of all cultures, major religions and history.

Other panelists made some similar points.

A panel of religious leaders opposed the bill, saying it could incite hate crimes, it is an issue of religious liberty and it denies homosexual couples rights, though they make the same vows and commitments as heterosexual couples and would find equal treatment helpful for stabilizing their families.

Some panel members indicated they are in a heterosexual relationship, some in a homosexual relationship. Some said their clergy can be homosexual, their congregations have homosexual members or they have officiated at weddings of couples of the same sex.

Speakers on the clergy panel were United Church of Christ, Episcopalian, Unitarian Universalist, American Baptist, Church of the Sacred Earth and Metropolitan Community Church of Boston.