Commentary for Patriot Ledger: Opinion “Validate gay marriage” , May 11, 2007

ATTORNEY PROVIDES CIVICS LESSON

I was pleased that the Ledger supports the continuation same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. (See the Ledger’s recent opinion, “Validate gay marriage”, May 11, 2007.)

As the Ledger alluded to in this Opinion, all of the advances of civil rights quoted (school desegregation in Little Rock, New Orleans and Boston), came through legal recognition, and not through “backdoors”. In the case of Little Rock, New Orleans, and Boston (as here in Massachusetts under Goodridge), the legal recognition came from court cases. They did not result from “people’s referendums”. 

If “people’s referendums” held sway, blacks would have been kept in separate schools and drinking from separate fountains for much longer than they were. Racial hatred would have percolated in this country in its virulent “Jim Crow” form much longer than it did. Look how long it has taken for racial hatred in this Country to abate – it is 142 years after the end of the Civil War, and we’re still working on it! 

Civil rights advances in this country are just that – they are advancements in thought brought about by the enlightened few -- the leaders and thinkers -- the legislators and judges. It is clear that, if put to a vote now in our own legislature, gay marriage would win the majority vote of the Massachusetts house and senate. Think of it – only 29% of our legislators (our voted-in representatives) think gay marriage should be put to a popular vote. That means 71% of our legislators believe the law should stay as it is, allowing for gay marriage. 

I hope the few South Shore legislators that are in this 29% minority reconsider their position. Please bear this in mind. There are a number of serious practical problems with the potential of having the populace vote on the ballot in November 2008. 

One of these is that Massachusetts will truly become a media circus for a year and a half. There will be billboards, radio and TV ads, and outside lobbying on both sides of the issue. It will be negative, painful, distressing, and we will be in a continual state of conflict. Do we really want or need this? 

And even if the populace voted to take away same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, additional lawsuits would work their way over many years to the SJC. One of these would be on the very important issue of how a peoples’ constitutional amendment can be diametrically opposed to the individual liberty and equality provisions in the Massachusetts constitution. 

A number of commentators believe that Goodridge is unappealable, because it is based on the liberty and equality provisions of our Constitution. Are we going to remove these provisions to satisfy a minority (or even a majority)? I hope not. Does our state Constitution permit us to add a constitutional provision that purposefully discriminates against an oppressed and disfavored minority? My sense from reading the same-sex marriage cases is that the SJC’s answer will be “no” on both these issues. 

The legislators are our voted representatives. Why do we think it is so important to permit a minority (29%) of legislators to have sway over the majority? Hopefully by the time the ConCon vote is taken, nine of these representatives (including some of our South Shore legislators) will have reconsidered their positions, and we will have a peaceful year and a half before November 2008 and afterwards. 

Laurie Israel, Esq.

The writer is a practicing Massachusetts attorney and Quincy resident.

www.laurieisrael.com