Gays' reasonable demand

Newark Star-Ledger Editorial, 11/19/2003

The Massachusetts Supreme Court yesterday opened the door to gay marriage in America with a sharply divided 4-3 opinion.

The ruling adds momentum to the cause, but gay couples are still a long way from their promised land. The court gave the Legislature 180 days to pass laws that equalize marriage rights, and opponents are sure to search for wiggle room in what appears an ironclad decision. Critics are also working on an amendment to the state constitution that would bar gay marriage.

Gay couples in Massachusetts will face more hurdles when they cross the state line. Most states and the federal government recently have passed laws that define marriage as the union of man and woman and forbid granting equal treatment to those gays married in other states.

So what really changed yesterday?

For one, gay couples in Massachusetts are likely to get marriage licenses. It takes years to amend the state constitution, and the court gave the Legislature only 180 days to end marriage discrimination. Once these couples are legally married, they will have standing to challenge state and federal laws that discriminate against them.

The political impact is less certain. Pushing the envelope on such a divisive social issue is bound to cause a backlash. The largest concern is with the great bulk of Americans who sympathize with the cause of gay rights but feel that marriage goes a step too far. If the backlash takes them along, this decision could be remembered as a setback for gay rights.

As this debate sharpens, remember exactly what the plaintiffs in Massachusetts were demanding. They were not asking traditional couples to change a thing in their marriages or in their families. They were not asking for any church or temple or mosque to change doctrines. They were not asking for an invitation to dinner or forgiveness for any sin.

A group of seven gay and lesbian couples in New Jersey has filed suit demanding precisely the same thing, on precisely the same grounds, in a case that could reach our Supreme Court as early as this spring.

The lawsuits merely insist on equal treatment under the law, arguing that society's squeamishness is not a valid reason to deny equal treatment. It is an excellent point.

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