A maverick on gay marriage: former Massachusetts governor William Weld stands out in the Republican Party as a straight man arguing for same-sex marriage.

As Massachusetts's governor in 1996, William Weld not only appointed to the state supreme judicial court eventual chief justice Margaret. Marshall--who authored last November's ruling in favor of same-sex marriage--the maverick Republican also laid the groundwork for a pro-gay slate environment. During his tenure from 1991 to 1997, Weld appointed dozens of gays and lesbians to high-level posts while fighting for a gay-inclusive Republican Party.

Weld, now of New York City investment firm Leeds and Weld jumped back into the political debate in January, signing a letter to oil 200 Massachusetts legislators urging them, not to settle, for a civil unions system. He argues the state has no choice but to conform to the high court ruling. Weld agreed to answer via e-mail The Advocate's questions about the ruling and the impending marriages of his gay friends.

When asked by The Advocate in 1993 whether you supported same-sex marriage, you said you were not ready. What changed?

The Massachusetts supreme [judicial] court's decision was a watershed moment in legal terms. The court's holding that a denial of the state-created privilege of marriage to same-sex couples would violate the Massachusetts constitution is a fairly clear one. That being the case, the question has moved beyond whether one is "in favor of" same-sex marriage. The court's decision is the law, at least in Massachusetts.

So are you saying you now support same-sex marriage?

I have read the opinions in the case, and while they are all thoughtful, scholarly, and serious, I do believe the case was correctly decided.

Why did you sign the letter to the legislators?

The reason I do not believe that a newly created status of "civil union" would satisfy the court's decision is because that is not what the court said. Suppose that after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Virginia antimiscegenation law in Loving v. Virginia, Congress had passed a new statute saying that blacks and whites could not marry but they could enter into other legal relationships. Such a statute would have been overturned by the Supreme Court.

In his State of the Union address, President Bush implied a constitutional amendment might be needed because "activist judges" are forcing their will on the people. You appointed the judge who wrote the opinion that the president is attacking.

Chief Justice Marshall's opinion was correctly decided. Obviously, reasonable people can differ on Otis point, [but] it is not entirely clear that even a federal constitutional amendment could change the meaning of a state's constitution--only the constitutionality of state law under the federal constitution.

You have raised money for President Bush. How do you reconcile your support for the president and your support for same-sex marriage?

Those who disagree with the social positions taken by the national platform of the Republican Party always have the option of running for office, making their case to the voters, and trying to change the platform. I have had some success with the first two.

While Massachusetts voters appear to support, same-sex marriage, voters in the rest of the country are a lot less enthusiastic. Will they catch up to your state?

I believe it is possible that public opinion may become less antagonistic toward same-sex marriage as people see more same-sex couples raising children.

If you did receive a license to officiate at same-sex marriages, do you have any specific marriages in mind?

I do have gay Mends who plan to seek a marriage license, and if legally empowered to do so, I would be glad to help officiate at the proceedings.