Change should not be left to courts

DISAGREEMENT ABOUT gay rights continues, but after reading recent opinion pieces and letters in The Boston Globe, one would think that there are only intelligent, right-thinking rationalists who support gay marriage and dim, knee-jerk bigots who oppose it. In this one-sided debate, one important question seems to have been overlooked: how change should be brought about.

Proponents of gay marriage have relied on the word "equal," which appears in the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and various state constitutions. As they understand the word, "equal" perhaps means that homosexuals, bisexuals, and any other sexual variety should have the same rights in every respect as plain old heterosexuals. It is also clear that not everyone today agrees with that view.

Indeed, in Connecticut and Massachusetts, where gay marriage was approved, the state supreme court justices voted 4-3 in favor.

That is, for three out of seven justices, it was not obvious that the word "equal" sanctioned gay marriage. Shall we agree that the justices are well-versed, intelligent, and thoughtful people? Six out of 14 were not swayed.

There is precedent for bringing about fundamental change through constitutional amendment. It is a slower and more difficult process, but one that is legitimate.

While times and mores change, these fundamental changes should be brought about with the assent of the people.

David Devore, Newtonville