The expanding circle of rights

IN TWO DAYS, Massachusetts will inaugurate its first African-American governor, a moment in history that makes many feel proud. The state, long a beacon for justice, has embraced an idea of itself as welcoming and inclusive. It would be a shame to undermine all that good will with a vote today to advance a narrow, limiting constitutional amendment denying gay couples the right to marry.

More than 8,500 same-sex marriages have been performed since the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling took effect in 2004, and the Commonwealth has not crumbled. Nor has "the bedrock of our social order," as the amendment's supporters describe heterosexual marriage. All that has happened is that the civil protections of marriage -- and their attendant responsibilities -- are being enjoyed by 17,000 more Massachusetts residents. This mean-spirited ban does not belong in the state constitution, which has never been used to restrict civil rights. We urge legislators to reject the amendment and the costly, divisive circus of a campaign that would doubtless follow its appearance on the 2008 ballot.

There has been much gnashing of teeth over whether the voters will be heard if the Legislature declines to vote on the amendment today. By now, legislators have debated the question in multiple constitutional conventions in 2004, 2005, and 2006. It is hard to say that the matter has not been aired. Last September, legislators took a final vote on a more lenient amendment -- which denied marriage but explicitly established civil unions as an alternative -- and defeated it, 157 to 39. That cleared the way for today's harsher version of the ban, which needs only 25 percent of the convention to advance.

The voters also have been heard at the polls in two separate statewide elections, where not one of the proponents of gay marriage was defeated and their margin in the Legislature increased. Governor-elect Deval Patrick was the only major-party candidate to steadfastly support gay marriage in the November election, and he won in a landslide.

The SJC asserted clearly last week that the constitution directs the Legislature to vote on the substance of the amendment. But the court was also correct in saying it cannot force an independent branch to act. The only remedy for those who believe legislators are frustrating the constitution by refusing to vote, the court noted, is at the ballot box. Just so. Most legislators would take their chances with the voters in their own districts.

Beyond the political machinations, however, are real people -- neighbors, co-workers, and friends -- just trying to live their lives as equals. It was not long ago that Americans of a disfavored race were denied the right to live or travel freely, to vote -- or to marry whom they pleased. This is a moment for advancing civil rights, not retreating.