|
During this process, I have tried to be a good listener and to respectfully consider the opinions of all of my constituents. I am honored that so many fine constituents have shared their own, often highly personal, reasons for taking one side or another in this debate. Like many members of the public, many members of the Legislature are struggling with this extremely complex and difficult issue.
So why not just let the people decide on this issue at the ballot box? That question deserves an answer.
The authors of the Massachusetts Constitution outlined a very specific procedure for amending the Constitution: The proposed constitutional amendment must be agreed to by a majority of a joint session of the Legislature, voting in two successive sessions of the Legislature, and then submitted to the electorate for a vote. A majority of the legislature must “agree to” the proposed amendment; we do not merely pass it on to the voters for their consideration. I therefore have a sworn constitutional duty to either agree to the proposed amendment or disagree with the proposed amendment.
I also have a grave concern about submitting questions dealing with the civil rights of a minority group (in this case, homosexuals) to a majority vote of the people. It is the duty of all people to protect the civil rights of everyone - whether we agree with them, whether we like them, or whatever our feelings may be. If the question of equal rights for African-Americans were put to a popular vote in the last century, I am not sure that it would have passed by a majority - but no thinking person today would deny basic civil rights to African-Americans. Similarly, equal rights for women might not have passed at the ballot box at certain times in our history. It is the responsibility of the majority to protect the civil rights of the minority.
Discrimination against minority groups by the majority can take many forms. At the turn of the Twentieth Century, discrimination against Catholics, Irish, Italians, Jews and other immigrant groups was rampant. The struggle by African-Americans for equal rights has been long and tortured. In every case it was the Court system that gave the impetus to protect the civil rights of the affected groups. And so today we have the Court system prodding a reluctant society to grant equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians.
But, is this truly a civil rights issue? Isn't this really about protecting the traditional definition of marriage?
It is in fact a civil rights issue when one group of American citizens is denied certain rights available to all other citizens. Today, gays and lesbians are denied health insurance, retirement and pension benefits, tax considerations, hospital visitation rights and 1,400 other rights, benefits and privileges simply because they can't be married. This is simply wrong. We should not tolerate a society where some citizens are second-class citizens.
But doesn't the legalization of same-sex marriage cheapen the marriage of traditional married couples? I have yet to see how anyone's marriage is threatened by the legalization of the union of a same-sex couple who probably love each other, respect each other, and cherish their relationship as much as anyone else does. These couples exist everywhere today; they are our neighbors, our co-workers and our friends. Letting others celebrate marriage should in fact strengthen the institution of marriage, not threaten it. I recognize the threats to marriage in today's America, but the threats are from forces totally unconnected to whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
There is another issue that deserves consideration. Under the Goodridge court order, in May of this year same-sex couples will be married in Massachusetts. There is nothing, under our constitution, that any legislator or any Judge can do about it. The earliest that the proposed constitutional amendment could be ratified by the voters would be November of 2006. For two years, same-sex couples will be getting married, starting families and living amongst us. What are we to do in November 2006, divorce them against their will and nullify their families? This is America, we cannot do that.
One aspect that must be made clear about the Supreme Judicial Court's decisions on same-sex marriage is that the decisions only apply to civil marriage; any Church or other religious organization is still free to apply whatever standards or restrictions they choose on who they will marry and under what conditions. The Courts have not, and should not, impose their will on the religious aspects of marriage. As I am today defending the civil rights of same-sex couples to marry, I will fight equally hard on behalf of the rights of religious organizations to choose whom they will marry and the conditions of those marriages and ceremonies. If any Church or other religious organizations choose to deny religious marriage rights to certain individuals, I will defend their right to do so.
In the final analysis, I will vote against the proposed constitutional amendment. I cannot codify discrimination in the world's oldest Constitution. Our Constitution is a sacred document that should serve as an expression of rights and not a limitation on rights. I cannot, in good conscience, vote to make discrimination in any form lawful. I did not run for office to hurt anyone or to deny equal protection. I ran for office to help people and to promote the equal protection under the law and the Constitution. The proposed constitutional amendment is deeply flawed and would serve to deny basic civil rights to many Massachusetts citizens and I will vote against it.
|
