"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow and
red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the
interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such
marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not
intend the races to mix."
Reading this statement on the eve of Independence Day is chilling. Yet,
this was a Virginia judicial ruling less than 40 years ago - until the
U.S. Supreme Court struck down the prohibition of interracial marriage,
citing the Constitution's equal protection and due process provisions.
This month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court confronts an
equally challenging question: Should gays and lesbians be afforded the
same legal right to marriage as any heterosexual couple, including those
of mixed race?
If it rules in favor of gay marriage, Massachusetts will be the first
state in the nation to do so, going beyond Vermont's endorsement of "civil
union."
Gay and lesbian advocates are waging this landmark battle with the same
Constitutional principles employed in 1967 to fight bans on interracial
marriage: liberty, equality, due process and non-discrimination of
minorities.
Parties opposing gay marriage seem inclined to rely on
non-Constitutional contentions: Marriage should be only for those who can
procreate. Government will suffer economically by providing gay couples
with financial and tax benefits. Precedent and religious beliefs should
prevail.
In defending the state's current law, the Massachusetts attorney
general prefers a separation-of-powers argument, stating that a
fundamental redefinition of marriage is best left to the legislature and
not the courts.
Even so, the attorney general "acknowledges that the possible rational
bases for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples ... may be offensive
to some people," even "hardheaded" or "hardhearted."
Whether through the courts or legislature, this issue confronts every
citizen and requires individual accountability. For some, it may be a
matter of conscience; for others, maybe an interpretation of the Bible.
For our part, we're most comfortable deferring to the irreducible
rights guaranteed all citizens by the state and federal constitutions.
Relying on criteria such as the ability to procreate, or fidelity or
economic impact is fraught with ambiguity.
If procreation is the crucible, would a law ever bar marriage for
infertile couples? Of course not. And today, a lesbian couple can have a
child with the aid of the same medical technology available to infertile
couples
If fidelity is the test, should legislation account for a 50-percent
divorce rate among heterosexuals? Of course not. And today, many gay and
lesbian couples live in stable, dignified and committed relationships.
If economics carries the day, how does government account for costs
created by heterosexual couples who abandon children or end up on welfare?
Maybe the best way to address this complicated issue is to make it
simple. That begins by understanding the seven gay and lesbian couples at
the forefront of this landmark case.
One couple has a 7-year-old daughter. Julie Goodridge is president of
NorthStar Asset Management Inc., which has $50 million under management.
Hillary Goodridge is program director of the Unitarian Universalist
Funding program, which distributes about $1 million each year to social
service and justice programs around the country.
Another couple is David Wilson, past president of the Greater Boston
Business Council and Robert Compton, a dentist. They also are interracial.
And then there are Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, our own neighbors in
Orleans who have been together 32 years. To sit with them is to appreciate
what this case is about.
Beyond the legal briefs and passionate debate that crosses social,
religious and historical lines, this case is about them.
Beyond homophobia and stereotypes, beyond ostentatious gay culture and
radical lifestyles, this case is about a single couple's love, commitment
and "normal" ness.
Because they are totally integrated into our community, it is very hard
to separate their rights from those of neighbors. Why can't they manage
their health, finances, estates, deaths in the same legal manner as do
their heterosexual friends?
Gloria and Linda have been cheered by the recent rulings of Canadian
provincial courts to legalize gay marriage. For the first time in three
decades together, they actually could get married. All it would take is a
trip north.
Yet, faced with this opportunity, neither would consider it. "This is
our country," they said. "We wouldn't give that up. Our hearts and souls
are on Cape Cod. We wouldn't abandon our town, home, friends, church."
Their vocabulary should appeal to anyone - liberal or conservative -
who views marriage as a foundation for community and nation.
Meanwhile, Gloria and Linda wait patiently - confident both in their
enduring commitment to each other and the rightness of their cause.
.gif)
