January 10, 2007

Opponents of same-sex marriage are continuing to do everything they can to block the progress of gay rights.

The latest example is in Massachusetts, where lawmakers began the new year with a shocking decision against same-sex marriage.

On Jan. 2, 62 of the state's 200 lawmakers voted to advance an amendment that would ban marriage between same-sex partners. Currently, Massachusetts is the only state that allows legal marriages between lesbian and gay couples. If the decision is reaffirmed by only 50 state legislators this session, the amendment will be placed before voters on the November 2008 ballot.

Nationwide, voters in 27 states have approved constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, with Arizona being the only one to defeat a referendum on the issue.

Massachusetts has been a key state in the marriage debate since 2003. That year, the state's Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the practice of restricting marriage to heterosexual couples is unconstitutional and "rooted in persistent prejudices against persons who are (or who are believed to be) homosexual." The court added that, "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."

In the time since the ruling went into effect in May 2004, more than 8,500 lesbian and gay couples have been legally married in the state.

Opponents of marriage equality in Massachusetts argue that voters should be allowed to define marriage, not "activist judges." They say that putting the issue before voters is the democratic thing to do.

But advocates for same-sex marriage view the denial of marriage rights for gay couples as a clear issue of discrimination.

The judiciary has long been a place where oppressed minorities have turned to for legal recourse. It's where countless civil rights battles have been waged and where the forces of intolerance have often been defeated.

If the civil rights issues that we take for granted had been put before voters of their time, I wonder how many states might have constitutional amendments barring interracialmarriage and school desegregation on their books today.

The current climate of voter referendum frenzy may be draped in the rhetoric of democratic process. But instead of being used to define and uphold citizen rights, opponents of same-sex marriage are essentially using state constitutions to codify discrimination.

Some states and local communities have moved forward with legislation supporting civil unions. Business leaders have begun to offer domestic partner benefits in greater numbers.

While those advances are welcome, they don't do nearly enough to end the second-class citizenship and outright discrimination currently experienced by lesbian and gay couples and their families.

Future generations will eventually look back on this continued injustice with shame.

Andrea E. Lewis is a San Francisco-based journalist and co-host of "The Morning Show" on KPFA Radio in Berkeley, Calif. She can be reached at pmproj [at] progressive [dot] org.