Recognizing Gay Couples

SHOULD GAY COUPLES be entitled to seek the same legal recognition and protections afforded to heterosexuals who choose to marry? The Supreme Court ruling striking down Texas's anti-sodomy law didn't answer this question, nor should it have. Rather, the majority afforded constitutional protection to "a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals" (our italics). But the ruling -- as Justice Antonin Scalia noted in his angry dissent -- inevitably raises the far more contentious issue of whether such recognition should be extended to gay couples.

We think it should, not because the Constitution requires it, but because it is the right thing to do. Indeed, as societal acceptance of homosexuality has broadened, it has already begun to happen, both here and abroad. The court's ruling followed by just a few weeks Canada's decision to allow gay couples to marry. Belgium and the Netherlands already permit such unions. In the United States, no state recognizes "gay marriage," but Vermont allows gay couples to enter civil unions that entitle them to the same benefits and legal protection under state law.

These are developments that should be welcomed, not decried. Society as a whole is made stronger when couples -- whether opposite-sex or same-sex -- cement their love and their commitment in legally sanctioned unions. Men and women in relationships every bit as loving and stable as heterosexual marriages should not be denied the right to decide on their partners' medical care, share in their insurance benefits or inherit their property. We recognize that some Americans profoundly disagree with this assessment and that gay marriage, in particular, is not likely to win political support in most states anytime soon. But we hope and believe that as more states consider the question, they will come down on the side of equal treatment and tolerance. What the relationship is called -- whether marriage, civil union or something else entirely -- seems to us less significant than providing formal legal recognition.

That is why we were so distressed to see Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) enthusiastically embrace a proposed amendment to the Constitution that would define marriage as consisting "only of the union of a man and a woman" and would go so far as to instruct that "neither this constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." Asked on ABC's "This Week" whether he supported the amendment, Mr. Frist said, "I absolutely do. Of course I do."

This may be a politically canny stance for Mr. Frist, but changing the Constitution in this way would be an unwise and unnecessary intrusion of the federal government into what is a quintessential state matter. Mr. Frist and others ought to back off and let states decide for themselves how to treat their residents, whether gay or straight.