|
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.
|