Why discriminate

OPPONENTS OF gay marriage face a tough task when the state constitutional convention reconvenes tomorrow.

Those who say they want to give gay and lesbian couples civil unions identical to marriage except in name must explain the logic: If the unions are legally comparable except for the word, what is the point in withholding the word?

To the many people who see gay marriage as essentially a civil rights issue, that "compromise" looks very much like the separate-but-equal stance that the US Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional half a century ago.

Other people, who favor a lesser degree of recognition for gay relationships, face two hurdles -- explaining themselves and winning a majority of the Legislature. Based on the debate last month, those citing religious sources or other reasons for giving diminished status to gays will likely not have the votes.

A proposal last week to separate the issues -- pushing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage but promising that the Legislature "shall" consider legislation for civil unions -- also appears in trouble. Many legislators will not vote for an amendment without a guarantee of strong civil unions. This proposal does not even guarantee a vote -- House Speaker Thomas Finneran has shown he does not feel bound by a constitutional "shall" -- and the definition of civil unions is left open to interpretation by the Legislature.

The pending amendment that is first up for debate tomorrow would bar gay marriage but guarantee civil unions and is supported by Senate President Robert Travaglini and perhaps by Finneran. It attempts a rationale, declaring: "The public policy of this Commonwealth [is] to protect the unique relationship of marriage. " But it does not answer the question: Protect from what?

An earlier proposal added the phrase: "in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and the best interest of children." Perhaps this language was dropped because legislators weren't convinced that same-sex love threatens society and because parenting by gay couples is now legal, increasingly common, and widely accepted.

This leaves the fundamental question: What is the threat? A "dear colleague" letter sent late yesterday by Travaglini and Finneran offers no answer.

Many of the people now supporting civil unions as a compromise were until very recently opponents of domestic partnerships or other such lesser rights for gay couples. It appears that their real motive is little more than a wish to avoid sharing something that they have enjoyed but do not own.

Major social change is always difficult, but we believe the time for gay civil rights has arrived. If legislators and the public succeed in writing discrimination into the Massachusetts Constitution, we feel confident it will last shorter than the 14 years Prohibition tarnished the US Constitution. Ultimately, it is not a legacy of which most legislators would be proud.

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