Drop challenge to gay marriage

The state Supreme Judicial Court's ruling that homosexuals must be allowed to marry is the only correct answer to a politically charged question. A small and oppressed minority has been relieved of the status of second-class citizenship. Nobody is harmed by the ruling.

To the contrary, the court's decision -- handed down by a 4-3 majority in the Goodridge case in November and clarified last week -- underlines the principle that all citizens are equal under the law. Our society has always been enriched when its appreciation of equality expands.

Long an oppressed minority, homosexuals have slowly gained recognition of their civil rights over the past few decades. The line had been drawn at marriage and its benefits which, the court noted, include rights in property, probate tax and evidence law.

Prohibition from marriage has also produced hardships in respect to the rules of child support and property division `` and even uncertainty concerning whether one will be allowed to visit one's sick child or one's partner in a hospital.''

Marriage, the court has written, is `` a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity and family.'' Without the right to choose to wed, same-sex couples `` are excluded from the full range of human experience.''

The court has spoken wisely.

Unfortunately, a move is afoot to roll back these rights through a constitutional amendment that could go on the state ballot in 2006.

A representative from The Sun Chronicle area, state Rep. Philip Travis, D-Rehoboth, is the author of the amendment. It is supported by four other area representatives -- John Lepper, R-Attleboro, Betty Poirier, R-North Attleboro, Michael Coppola, R-Foxboro, and Scott Brown, R-Wrentham. The other two members of The Sun Chronicle area delegation, Rep. Louis Kafka, D-Sharon, and Sen. Jo Ann Sprague, R-Walpole, oppose it. (The Senate seat formerly held by Cheryl Jacques, D-Needham, is vacant. Brown is running for the seat against former Jacques aide Angus McQuilken, who opposes the amendment).

We urge the representatives favoring the amendment to reconsider. Such an amendment should not become part of the state constitution. Its result would not only trample the newly recognized rights of a minority, but institutionalize discrimination against them. Such an attack on equality for some could prove cancerous to the rights of all.

We have heard the arguments of gay marriage opponents. Some of their objections are religious in nature, for which we have the utmost respect. But the court's decision extends access only to civil marriage. Denominations can condone and perform marriages they see fit and deny their approval to others. The gay marriage decisions pose no threat to their religious freedom.

Objections that the court has overstepped its bounds have no merit. The court has interpreted the state constitution, on which it is the final authority.

The court, not the ballot box, is the place to settle questions of equal rights. Equality is not an appropriate subject for a popularity contest; it is a fundamental principle from which the rights of all are derived.

The state Senate had passed a bill allowing civil unions by same-sex couples, as has been done in Vermont and might be more politically acceptable than gay marriage in Massachusetts, then asked the court if the bill would be constitutional.

`` No,'' came the answer last week from a 4-3 majority of the court. The proposed law would continue to relegate same-sex couples to a different status, the justices wrote, and `` the history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.''

According to the U.S. Census, 1.3 percent of all households in Massachusetts are headed by same-sex couples. With the court's decision now crystal clear, those who choose to do so will be able to marry. The first ceremonies will be May.

When these couples say `` I do,'' they will make legal commitments that not only strengthen their own families, but all of Massachusetts.

This decision from the court -- as are all decisions that broaden the notion of equality -- is a good and wise one. It should be allowed to stand without threat of an ill-advised constitutional amendment.

'Freedom to Marry Rings' image upper right © H. Mitchell.