By Philip J. Carver

"Who would give a law to lovers? Love is unto itself a higher law." -Boethius

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's recent groundbreaking decision regarding gay marriage has set off a firestorm that in the coming months will undoubtedly focus the nation's eyes on the Commonwealth. In response to this landmark decision, the State Senate will present a sweeping civil unions bill that will provide all the protections, obligations, and benefits of a civil marriage, while not going as far as describing the unions as "marriage."

No matter where you stand on this debate, it appears that the key sticking point with gay advocates and opponents alike is the word "marriage." Proponents claim that the Supreme Courts ruling was explicitly clear in that same-sex couples "must have access to the same marriage system as heterosexuals." Opponents of the ruling cite the fact that marriage is a "sacred" institution and is as it always has been an "institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."

In our era of enlightenment how could anyone in good conscience deny people the right to hospital visitations or health insurance for employees' partners or worker compensation benefits for partners? Marginalizing our sons and daughters, sisters and brothers to second-class citizenship because of their sexual orientation is not only wrong, it is unethical. Opponents who choose to hide behind the thin veil of "sanctity" are treading a treacherous line of Church and State. Sanctity by its nature denotes religion and the same-sex marriage debate is a matter of State not Church, and one's religious beliefs need to be omitted from the equation conversely this decision deals only with civil marriage, not religious marriage. The allowing of civil marriages will be just that- "Civil"- and will not be coming to a church near you. For instance, the Catholic Church's position on same-sex marriage is well entrenched and will never change, thusly protecting the "sanctity" of marriages for Catholics.

The relationship between Church and State is a tenuous one at best; some claim that since the framers of our Constitution were deeply religious they intended for religion to always play a role in our governance. Others will point out the first amendment as proof that the framers attempted to delineate between the two…. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The argument of religion's role will always rage on and differing interpretations will be reached depending on the interpreter's motive.

Yet, what is undeniable is the fact the fathers of our country created the Constitution to be a living document that would grow, morph and expand to encompass and embrace all who call America home. Our forefathers articulated a list of unalienable rights that are the essence of a free human being and are the basis of our Liberty. To deny basic matrimonial services to same sex couples would be a constitutional step backwards. Also in a related note it flies in the face of most religious teachings: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is a central ethical teaching of Jesus, often referred to as the Golden Rule; it is based on his words from the Sermon on the Mount.

It smacks of disingenuousness that there are those in our society that oppose two committed individuals from marrying and sharing in their Constitutional rights because they are the same sex yet fail to apply the same "sanctity" to heterosexual marriages. The courts dissolved nearly 1.2 million American marriages in 1994, a number that was triple the 1960 figure. Today most experts predict that nearly half of all new marriages will end in divorce. In Las Vegas you can go to the drive thru chapel and get married without ever leaving your SUV. J-Lo and Liz Taylor have gotten hitched more times than a covered wagon and for three straight weeks America has been bombarded with the Bachelorette and her made-for-TV wedding to the man she met through the inane show. At the risk of sounding trite, marriages farcical or otherwise seem to be acceptable if your name is Adam and Eve but if your Adam and Steve and want to have your committed relationship recognized by the state, well sorry, it destroys the "sanctity."

My wife, Pamela, and I have been happily married for five years and I feel we both respect the institution of marriage and all that it entails. I do not, however, feel that it is rocket science. Although we strive to make a difference we do not feel that our union reinvents the wheel. Simply put, I am hopeful that gay couples that ultimately choose marriage will enter into it for the same reasons I did and as a result they deserve to share the same benefits afforded me by my marriage. Massachusetts must decide this issue solely on the basis of the constitutional principles under the Commonwealths governing charter to ensure our citizenry, regardless of their sexual orientation will be afforded equal rights.

(Philip J. Carver is a lifelong Dorchester resident, neighborhood activist and current president of the Pope's Hill Neighborhood Association.)