|
BOSTON—The drive to ban same-sex marriage in
Massachusetts has been defeated. Same-sex marriage remains safe in the
only state where it is legal.
A proposed constitutional
amendment, initiated by voter petition, would have defined marriage as
the union of one man and one woman, thereby overturning the 2004 law
that legalized marriage regardless of sexual orientation. The amendment
needed the support of at least 50 of the 200 state legislators in two
back-to-back legislative sessions. This past January, 62 of them
supported the ban.
A ratifying vote would have
brought the amendment to the public in the 2008 elections. In similar
referenda throughout the country, same-sex marriage bids have failed by
a wide margin.
On June 14, in a state
Constitutional Convention, a meeting of the Massachusetts House and
Senate, only 45 lawmakers supported the ban, thus killing the anti-gay
amendment. Barring a reversal from the legislature, opponents of
same-sex marriage will not be able to place another petition on the ballot
until 2012.
What explains the switch in
vote? Perhaps a clue can be found in the writings of Thomas Paine,
author of "Common Sense." Paine noted that radical ideas
raise "at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the
tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
Time has certainly been
favorable to gay-rights advocates, allowing the marriage controversy to
move from the hypothetical to the actual. In three years over 10,000
gay and lesbian couples have wed.
For society at large, the
consequence of these marriages has been thoroughly unremarkable.
Same-sex couples have simply blended in to the social fabric. This
acceptance is exactly what conservative religious and political leaders
claimed would not happen.
In June 2006, at a press
conference at the State House, then governor and current Republican
presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Roman Catholic Cardinal Sean P.
O’Malley together urged support for the referendum to overturn the
Mass. law. In this press conference the cardinal and the candidate gave
the fullest explanation for their point of view. Cardinal O’Malley
said, "To redefine marriage as merely an arrangement among adults
undermines the family and will have serious consequences in our future.
… Where marriage is weakened, the social cost is enormous."
Contrary to the Cardinal’s dire
predictions, marriage among heterosexuals has not been affected by the
legality of gay marriage. Most heterosexual individuals continue to
marry for the personal and legal benefits that marriage affords. These
rights have simply been extended to gays.
The failure of the anti-gay
marriage amendment signifies the failure of the politics of fear. Gov.
Romney, for his part, framed the gay marriage issue as "a vote for
or against democracy." Gov. Romney declared, "Let the
people speak." The governor’s concern for democracy would have
been more convincing if he had ever favored letting the people speak in
a referendum on life-and-death issues such as the Iraq War.
But, like most politicians, the
governor does not believe that matters of war should be decided
directly by the people who are called upon to fight them. On matters of
war and peace, the governor would limit democracy rather than extend it.
Regardless of priests and politicians,
the time for same-sex marriage has come. As social attitudes change,
the marriage laws will change, as well. Women no longer turn over their
property to their husbands upon marriage; inter-racial marriage, once
forbidden, is no longer uncommon; and, despite the opposition and
false predictions of the Catholic Church, the legality of divorce has
not undermined the institution of marriage.
Likewise, as U.S. society
becomes more accepting of gays and lesbians, their marriages will also
become more acceptable. The result will widen the definition of
marriage.
On ABC Radio last April, Vice
President Dick Cheney, whose lesbian daughter was expecting the birth
of a son, said, "I obviously think it’s important for us as a
society to be tolerant and respectful of whatever arrangements people
enter into." Of course, people can only enter into marriage
arrangements if the legal restrictions against part of the population
are removed.
The most intimate of
choices—marriage—should remain the right of adults, not the state. It
is a right of a minority where the majority has no reason to intrude.
Gay marriage is part of the evolution and expansion of American
democracy.
|