Equality on Beacon Hill

Late last night, having rejected three proposed amendments, the legislators wearily took up a fourth, but it could not escape the same shoals. In it, opponents of gay marriage surrendered on substantive issues, guaranteeing to gay couples civil unions that "shall provide entirely the same benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities that are afforded to couples married under Massachusetts law."

But if there is no reason to deny benefits or responsibilities, why deny the word "marriage?" The text said the amendment was designed "to protect the unique relationship of marriage," but in all the debate no one made clear what threat marriage needs to be protected from.

Parsing language so one group of citizens is allowed the benefits and privileges of marriage -- defined as a union between one man and one woman -- while another group is told to live with something less cannot be done in the name of equality. Almost isn't equal.

That is why Senator Robert Havern's question rang so clear in an attentive hall. "How do you compromise someone's rights?" he asked.

That is why so many legislators applauded Representative Byron Rushing's stirring history lesson yesterday as he urged his colleagues to remember that Massachusetts was the first state to have no slaves.

"Is my family so different from any of yours?" asked Senator Jarrett Barrios, who has adopted two children with his gay partner. He noted that states with narrowly defined marriage statutes have denied gays and lesbians benefits and the right to visit partners in the hospital.

Representative Elizabeth Malia said that if she died, her partner of 30 years might lose their house because she is not legally a spouse. "Do not carve in stone a status that is less than equal," she said. The Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that the Constitution as written provides full equality. It needs no parsing.

The Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that the Constitution as written provides full equality. It needs no parsing. The Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that the Constitution as written provides full equality. It needs no parsing.