Gay marriage: Get on with it

It makes sense, as aides say he plans to do, for State Senate President Robert Travaglini to postpone a February 11 vote by the Legislature on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage if the Supreme Judicial Court hasn't weighed in again on same-sex marriage by that date. A postponement would erect at least a temporary barrier to an amendment that is mean-spirited and prejudicial, and anyway referenda are a lousy way to make law. But any such delay should not be necessary, for the SJC ought to quickly reiterate its ruling that gays must be allowed to marry in the commonwealth, and a lesser "civil-union" law, while helpful to same-sex couples, would still leave them second-class citizens. The court was right to declare that marriage laws mean little if they do not "include the right to marry the person of one's choice." Equality under the law is not negotiable.

So fierce has been the anti-gay-marriage backlash by a radical conservative minority - polls show more Bay Staters support gay marriage than oppose it - that some legislative leaders have proposed a civil-unions compromise and asked the SJC if that would suffice. The court solicited and received briefs on the idea last week. It's hard to see, however, how the SJC could nullify its own ringing November declaration that "the Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals" and said it could find no rational basis for denying the rights of loving, devoted same-sex couples to marry. Civil unions are civil unions, and marriage is marriage.

While the Legislature's duty is clear, its position is unenviable, for protocol requires that legislators endure all manner of anti-gay claptrap. Some of the most repellent forecasts of gay-marriage doom have come from powerful church figures such as Archbishop Sean O'Malley as they rail about harm to "child welfare." Their information and logic is exactly backwards. The 2000 Census listed 156,000 same-sex couples with children in the United States. All objective studies by reputable national psychological and pediatric organizations show that overwhelmingly these children grow up as happy and "normal" as other children. The significant difference is, these kids tend to be more tolerant of differences. The baseless slurs on these families cast by religious and other anti-gay zealots only reinforce the need among such families for the legal protections afforded by marriage.

There's no denying that civil unions can be important to gay couples. Last week, New Jersey was the latest of five states to grant same-sex couples such rights as shared health insurance, hospital-visitation rights, automatic inheritance, joint state-tax filings, survivor's benefits and other civil rights heterosexual couples take for granted. The New Jersey bill, in fact, sailed easily through the Legislature on a tide of appreciation for its fundamental fairness. Massachusetts is rapidly moving toward extending that fairness to lesbian and gay couples in both substance and name, marriage, a proud moment in the commonwealth's proud history.

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