Debating equality
INSIDE THE Massachusetts House chamber yesterday, legislators meeting in constitutional convention maneuvered and cajoled and compromised, trying to find language that would ban gay marriage but still attract a majority of votes. Outside the chamber, hundreds of gays and lesbians with hand-scrawled signs reading "Separate is never equal" waited patiently, singing "This Land is Your Land" and "We Shall Not Be Moved."
In other words, outside the House chamber were people for whom gay marriage is a matter of civil rights, and inside were people for whom it is a political problem. "It's like a big poker game in there," said Representative Daniel Bosley, Democrat of North Adams, who intended to vote no on any proposed amendment. "Everybody is bluffing."
Legislative floor whips were counting noses, but no one could predict the final outcome through most of the long night of debate. Many supporters of gay marriage initially voted in favor of the leadership's compromise amendment, which declared marriage the exclusive province of heterosexuals but established civil unions -- with a robust list of parallel rights -- for same-sex couples. Some of those legislators voted against the same amendment on later ballots.
Similarly, some who oppose even civil unions voted for the proposed amendment just to assure that some kind of restriction on gay marriage would advance toward the 2006 ballot.
The parliamentary horse-trading shows why matters of fundamental constitutional rights are better decided by the courts than in legislative bodies. Basic civil rights cannot be parsed or compromised away.
It isn't that the legislators were insincere in their beliefs or their often eloquent arguments. But their job is politics -- the art of the possible, as many have said. The Supreme Judicial Court's declaration that the Massachusetts Constitution supports equal rights to marriage, on the other hand, is not about what is possible or agreeable but what is right.
Representative Jay Kaufman, Democrat of Lexington, dismissed the notion that the proposed amendment protected traditional marriages like his own. "I do not want that affirmation if it comes with an assault on other families," he said. But the 127-77 tally, taken near midnight amid a frenzy of vote-switching, was a strategic ruse, not a true vote on the merits of the proposal.
It is important to remember that amending the Massachusetts Constitution is an intentionally difficult process that requires approval in a second legislative session and ratification by the voters. Notwithstanding the Legislature's actions last night, same-sex couples should be able to marry legally in Massachusetts starting on May 17. We hope that as people of good will see committed gay couples actually joining in marriage, support for any discriminatory amendment, on Beacon Hill and on Main Street, will fade. 