A victory for equality

YESTERDAY was one of those days that makes Massachusetts truly remarkable.

By a vote of 151 to 45, the Legislature killed a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage -- and by so doing, dealt the effort to nullify the Supreme Judicial Court landmark 2003 ruling a devastating blow .

Afterward, Governor Deval Patrick, Speaker Sal DiMasi, Senate President Therese Murray, and Senate Republican leader Richard Tisei savored the victory in speeches to a large, overjoyed crowd at the foot of the State House's Grand Staircase.

This, noted the governor, was a victory for equality, one that transcended party politics.

Indeed it was. Some gay-marriage opponents predictably called their defeat a denial of democracy, but in fact, this was representative democracy in action.

The signal fact of the matter is that over the course of this state's long debate about gay marriage, an awful lot of legislators looked inside themselves, examined their consciences, talked with constituents, and changed their minds.

One was Representative Paul Kujawski, Democrat of Webster, who had voted against gay marriage until yesterday.

As he talked to gays and lesbians, Kujawski told me, he heard over and over again that people shouldn't face discrimination because of the way they were born.

"When you hear that, it really has a great impact," he said. "You try as a representative to put your own family into that same situation, saying, what if it was me, what if it was my sons, what if it was my brother or my sister, or somebody very close to me?"

Another waverer, Senator Robert Hedlund, Republican of Weymouth, had a different experience. Hedlund found his previous pro-amendment vote reinforced when a neighbor on his blue-collar street approached him yesterday morning to stress that he wanted the amendment to go to the ballot so he could vote on it. In the end, Hedlund, who said this issue was one of the most difficult he had ever encountered, uttered a quiet yes when the roll of senators was called.

Hedlund's decision notwithstanding, however, what we witnessed overall was an encouraging evolution of legislative thinking in favor of inclusion.

Just three years ago, a strict marriage ban put forward by then House Speaker Thomas Finneran came within two votes of winning the 101 it needed to move forward. Yesterday, the similar anti-gay marriage amendment -- which because it began as a citizen petition needed only one quarter of the 200-member Legislature -- fell five shy of the required 50 votes.

Afterward, an exultant Senator Robert Havern, Democrat of Arlington, who gave an influential speech in favor of gay marriage during one of the early debates on the issue, said the message was plain.

"One hundred and fifty-one members of the Legislature said this should not be on the ballot," Havern said. "I don't know how much clearer the message should be."

Under our state Constitution, it's as clear as can be. And as clear as need be.

Here's what makes this victory special and important. It didn't come about as the result of parliamentary shenanigans. The amendment wasn't buried and allowed to die without a vote, as the Legislature seemed ready to do last year.

Instead, gay marriage supporters did the long, hard work it took to prevail on the merits. They gave the measure the vote it was entitled to under the constitutional process. And in doing so, they won a completely honorable victory.

Yes, there was cajoling and persuasion and pressure. Afterward, the governor noted that he will be doing a number of fund-raisers and district events as a result of his own efforts to swing votes.

But wasn't it ever thus in situations like this ? In previous years, certainly, Governor Mitt Romney and Finneran tried to use their sway to push through the anti-gay marriage amendment they favored.

Although Beacon Hill's big Democratic three were the focus of the rapturous applause yesterday, gay marriage supporters should also tip their hats to several less sung heroes.

One is Stan Rosenberg, the Senate president pro tempore, who was an instrumental strategist and leader for the cause back before any of the current Democratic leadership troika held their current posts.

Another is Byron Rushing, the House's second assistant majority leader, who played a key, quiet (and, for this columnist, maddeningly closed-mouthed) role in identifying potential vote-switchers.

With yesterday's action, this issue has been decided, fairly and squarely. And now, it really is time to move on.

Scot Lehigh's e-mail address is lehigh@globe.com.