Like the parsons of old, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court has paused to admonish the congregation that if anyone objects to
the civil marriage of gay couples, speak now or forever hold your peace.
On the topic of gay marriage, we can expect plenty of speaking over the
next 180 days from citizens and legislators. It is as important a debate
as most Americans have ever witnessed, touching on the most fundamental of
questions: What is the essence of marriage? What are the rights of
citizens to marry whom they choose? What is the responsibility of
government to set rules for the most intimate of human relationships?
The SJC has set a timetable for this debate, but has limited the
options for resolving it. Far from opening up the definition of marriage
for legislative action, the SJC has dictated its own, defining it as "the
exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other."
That may not feel right to those for whom "one man and one woman" is an
essential component of marriage. Then again, a few decades ago, most
people thought the definition of marriage required marrying within your
race, nationality or religion. A few centuries ago, the definition of
marriage included the wife becoming the legal property of her husband.
Definitions change, and the SJC has written a definition of marriage for
the 21st century.
We applaud their definition. Marriage is not just about procreation. It
is a loving, lasting commitment between two people. The civil benefits and
obligations that come with marriage cannot constitutionally be denied
because of the genders of the individuals involved.
The SJC gave the Legislature six months to act on its ruling, but it's
unclear what the options are. A civil union alternative similar to
Vermont's has political appeal, but it doesn't carry the stamp of societal
respect that comes with the term marriage -- and it may be precluded by
the SJC's decision.
The Legislature should consider all alternatives, including legalized
gay civil marriage, civil unions and a constitutional amendment preserving
the traditional definition of marriage. We don't support the latter, but
we have long argued that it is better to ratify social changes through
legislation -- even by referendum -- than by judicial fiat. We don't fear
giving the people a voice in expanding the civil rights of gay and lesbian
citizens; in fact, we welcome it.
According to the 2000 Census, 1.3 percent of Massachusetts households
are headed by gay couples. For them, their friends and families, this
ruling provides reason to celebrate the opening of a long-closed door.
For others, the ruling marks the beginning of a new chapter in an
important -- if, for some, uncomfortable -- discussion. We hope it will be
waged with civility and respect for all citizens and all points-of-view.
We expect the discussion may extend beyond 180 days, perhaps through the
next two elections. But we look forward to the day all marriages will be
toasted, and those outside the family will forever hold their peace.
.GIF){kind=small}
