A gay-marriage tide

Berkshire Eagle Editorial, March 28, 2004

Tomorrow the Legislature will resume its tumultuous, ongoing constitutional convention on same-sex marriage. The ideal outcome would be a decision to forget the entire ill-conceived notion of slapping down those uppity gays who wish to legally preserve and protect their loving and devoted unions just as heterosexuals do. Current political reality, however, may result in a constitutional amendment that, if approved by voters in 2006, would provide same-sex civil unions that are equal to marriage in all but name.

Or, with more than two years of experience with gay marriage – which becomes a Massachusetts reality this May 17, thanks to the Supreme Judicial Court – voters in 2006 might come to see how gay civil marriage strengthens, not weakens, the ever-evolving institution of marriage. And the electorate will choose not to expel lesbians and gay men from what otherwise is hardly an exclusive club. That would represent a triumph of social justice.

The worst outcome of this week's maneuvering would be an amendment allowing but not requiring civil unions, or one where civil unions could be defined and redefined by the Legislature. Gay couples need and deserve stability for themselves and, for those who have them, their children.

The debate at the Statehouse earlier this month was notable for the eloquence of pro-gay-marriage legislators, who saw the question as one of equal rights and decency. Berkshire County can take pride in Senator Andrea Nuciforo and Representatives Daniel Bosley, Shaun Kelly and William "Smitty" Pignatelli. Each acted admirably, despite a barrage of anti-gay venom pouring into their offices, some from constituents, much from elsewhere.

Pittsfield Representative Peter Larkin's arguments against gay marriage were unconvincing. Mr. Larkin linked the low marriage rate in Norway with gay unions – in fact, it is the welfare state that has altered bonding patterns in Scandinavia – and asserted that children of same-sex parents suffer developmentally. All available evidence runs counter to this myth retailed by right-wing crackpots Mr. Larkin would do well to steer clear of.

Another disappointment has been the opposition to gay marriage by a number of African-American churches. While the experience of gays and blacks in the U.S. is far from identical, since the end of slavery blacks have at least had their families and churches to retreat to for understanding and protection. Many gays are born into families that become their own oppressors and into churches that regard them as "disordered" sinners. More sympathetic understanding by religious African-Americans could be reasonably expected here.

Sooner or later, gay marriage is coming in the U.S. In polls, most young people are for it. A federal constitutional amendment banning it is already faltering in Congress. Gay-marriage legal tussles are breaking out from San Francisco to New Paltz, New York. Governor Mitt Romney has lawyers racking their brains for ways to halt the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in mid-May, but there is no legal way for him to do so. When the Legislature meets this week, it should accept the inevitability of gay marriage and throw as few obstacles as possible in the way of a social reform that is fair, humane and deeply conservative in all the best ways.

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