Same-sex Semantics

The Supreme Judicial Court decision last week that same-sex couples have a right to marry has, not surprisingly, presented elected officials with a quandary.  Not wishing to alienate the gay and lesbian community but fearful of losing ground in what they consider mainstream America, some are trying to find a compromise.  They proclaim their support for nondiscrimination or for civil unions with the rights and privileges of marriage but insist that those unions not be called marriage.

The word game is demeaning to all citizens no matter what their sexual orientation.  Fundamental civil rights cannot and should not be compromised.

"Limiting the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the basic premises of individual liberty and equality under law protected by the Massachusetts Constitution," Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall wrote in the landmark 4-3 decision.

Some state officials are peering deeply into this sentence, hoping that awarding the "protections, benefits, and obligations" of marriage without the title would satisfy the court.
       
"Under that opinion, I believe that a civil union type provision would be sufficient," Governor Mitt Romney told the Globe last week. Attorney General Thomas Reilly said that after "reading that opinion several times, I see there is considerable ambiguity.  I can't see with any certainty what the court intends, nor can anyone else, other than providing for basic fairness."

They should read the opinion again.  What the court plainly intends is marriage - and correctly so, for gay and lesbian families have been living that relationship without benefit of title for a long time.  Calling their commitment anything other than marriage creates an odious "separate but equal" version of partnership under the law.  And for Romney to say that the lesser title would be "sufficient" is to treat a segment of the population as not quite worthy to be in the club.

As for "considerable ambiguity" in the decision:  Vermont-style civil unions are not mentioned in the "remedies" section, while Canada's new marriage law is.  The court provides a long list of state benefits "accessible only by way of a marriage license."  Even the dissenting opinion recognizes that the decision refers to nothing less than marriage.

Plaintiffs and their advocates say they will push harder if the Legislature crafts a civil union bill, filing another suit if necessary to attain what the court clearly accorded them.

We hope it isn't necessary.  The decision provides all the guidance the state needs:  "We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others."  Anything less is settling for what's safe instead of doing what's right.

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