Reject the gay marriage amendment

The rights of homosexuals and the tradition of marriage are issues that resonate in culture, religion and the personal experiences of each citizen. Massachusetts is now at a crossroads on the right of gays to marry, and emotions are running high. From the president to the parish priest, we hear calls to amend the Constitution to protect "the sanctity of marriage."

It's a curious call to political arms. The dictionary defines "sanctity" as holiness, or "the fact of being sacred." It is a religious term, out of place in a discussion of civil law. We wouldn't amend the Constitution to protect the sanctity of communion or the sanctity of the Passover seder. So while marriage comes in both civil and religious iterations, it is the civil meaning that is the proper concern of government officials, and we should approach this discussion with respect for constitutional roles and processes.

We can start by respecting the role of the Supreme Judicial Court. The SJC has done nothing more nor less than its job, which is to interpret the state Constitution. Plaintiffs denied the right to civil marriage filed suit, and the courts ruled on it with clarity, logic and courage. Judges should take their guidance from the law, not public opinion polls, and the SJC was right to recognize that nothing in the Constitution denies gay adult citizens the right to marry the mates they have chosen.

The SJC is being denounced as "activist," a common complaint from people who don't like a particular court's ruling. Some complain that the Goodridge ruling and this week's clarification came on 4-3 votes, but while it's helpful if a controversial ruling is unanimous, a one-vote margin makes it no less binding. Others complain that unelected judges interpret the law, but John Adams and the other authors of the state Constitution believed judges should be insolated from popular sentiment, and we agree.

We should also respect the role of state legislators, which includes originating constitutional amendments. Amending the Constitution is a lengthy deliberative process by design, requiring two votes of consecutive legislatures and a vote by the people.

The constitutional role of the Legislature is not to quickly rubber-stamp the amendment so the voters can make the decision in a referendum. This cumbersome process was designed so that the Constitution can only be changed if the elected representatives as well as the voters consider it a good idea.

Lawmakers should not duck this issue at Wednesday's Constitutional Convention. As we said at the time, former Senate President Tom Birmingham was wrong to dodge a vote when this came up last year.

Lawmakers should vote their consciences, and we hope they will listen to those inner voices that balk at building discrimination into the Constitution. Constitutions have always been aimed at protecting and extending civil rights, never at restricting them. Two centuries ago, the framers may not have considered it a fundamental right to marry the person you love, but they never intended to limit how future generations defined liberty and justice.

Proponents of the amendment like to pretend that all churches and most citizens are outraged at the thought of same-sex marriage, but they are wrong. Many churches support the full spectrum of gay rights, and polls suggest opinion in the Bay State is evenly split on the topic of gay marriage. Younger citizens lean strongly in favor.

Attitudes are changing quickly on the issue gay rights, which may be the best reason not to lock a transitory sentiment into the state's foundational document. There was widespread outrage in 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned state laws forbidding interracial marriage. Many of the same arguments were heard that we hear today, and polls found that 70 percent of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage. Given how quickly those attitudes changed, it is fortunate that a prohibition of interracial marriage wasn't written into the Constitution.

Legislators should consider seriously that precedent, and bequeath freedom, not prejudice, to the generations to come. We urge the Legislature to bring the anti-gay marriage amendment to a vote -- and vote it down.

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