By Marie St. Fleur
State Representative

Our legislature is facing one of those unique periods in history where we are called to rise above the politics, drum out the emotional protests of our most vocal and focus upon our duty to protect the living document, our Constitution. Today, we are being asked to change the Constitution of the Commonwealth because the Courts have ruled to protect the rights of a minority group. What is most difficult is that their ruling challenges our view of societal norms that we have long accepted without question.

Should questions regarding the civil rights of any group (in this case gays and lesbians) be handled appropriately in the court of public opinion? No. It is the duty of the courts and the legislature to protect the civil rights of our citizens whether or not we agree with them, understand them and regardless of whether we like them. I am convinced that if the question of equal rights for Black people were put to a popular vote in the last century, that it would not have been passed by the majority.

Discrimination against minority groups has taken many forms. At the turn of the 20th century, discrimination against Catholics, Irish, Italians, Jews and other immigrant groups was the norm. For centuries, society and institutions- including the church- accepted slavery. As late as the seventies, women were often viewed as the property of their male relatives or of their spouse and so they demanded their liberation. Society had to adapt to the challenges and the rewards of that change. All the actions to change discrimination against various groups did not come about because of the good will or the foresight of society or legislative bodies. In every case, it was the court system that gave the impetus to protect the civil rights of the affected group. And so today we have the Court system pushing a reluctant society to grant equal marriage rights for same sex couples.

Is this truly a civil rights issue? Isn't this really about protecting the traditional definition of marriage? Today, same sex couples are denied health insurance, retirement and pension benefits, tax considerations, hospital visitation rights and about 1400 other rights, benefits and privileges because they can't be married. This is simply wrong. We cannot tolerate a society where some are treated as second-class citizens under the law.

Marriage is a loaded concept because of the confluence of church, cultural traditions as well as state action. As a Catholic legislator I am challenged by my commitment to my faith and my corresponding duty to uphold our Constitution. In his quest to become the first Catholic President of the United States of America, John F. Kennedy said to a convening of Protestant ministers, "… I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute". The decision of the Supreme Judicial Court on same sex marriage only applies to civil marriage. Religious organizations of any denomination are free to apply whatever standards, conditions or restrictions they choose regarding whom they will marry. Neither the Court nor the legislature has attempted to regulate the practice of any faith. I would defend the rights of any religious organization to deny religious marriage to any one they choose. I respect the role of priest, bishops and other religious leaders in their realm. However, in the secular duties that I must execute as a legislator, I have a distinctive role.

I believe that my role in this matter is to advance the doctrine of equal rights as well as protect the stability of family. The state has always been involved in the regulation of marriage. In fact, in the United States marriage is a creature of state action. Originally, religious organizations were not even allowed to perform a marriage ceremony. What then is the legal justification for excluding gay couples from this civil procedure? Moral disapproval is not a legitimate reason for state sanctioned discrimination.

Civil Rights leader Coretta Scott King defended the pursuit of equal protection for gays and lesbians and spoke out, saying on one occasion, "For too long, our nation has tolerated the insidious form of discrimination against this group of Americans, who have worked as hard as any other group, paid their taxes like everyone else, and yet have been denied equal protection under the law. I believe that freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience."

I have always seen this matter as a civil rights issue. It was a difficult decision because so many people that I care about, some in my district and some in my church may not understand that position.

I worked very hard prior to the Supreme Judicial Court's decision, along with many colleagues, to fashion a Civil Union bill, much like one successfully constructed in the state of Vermont. I believed that that kind of incremental step recognized the need for a legal union but would also provide a basis for an ongoing, less polarized dialogue on this matter. But, this did not happen. After 12 years of waiting for legislative action, gay and lesbian couples seeking equal protection under the law moved to the courts. We are a country of laws, the Courts have spoken; some may not agree with the outcome or the analysis but they have spoken. Gay and lesbian families are part of our society. These families now live outside the protection and mandates of our laws. It is in the state interest to recognize these families. Changing our Constitution to intentionally discriminate is wrong.

The author represents the 5th Suffolk House district.



Letter to the Editor
Walsh's Courageous Stand Is in Synch with Founders' Vision of Democracy
To the Editor:

I would respectfully suggest that Joseph Ureneck's Letter to the Editor, in last week's Reporter regarding the proposed Amendment to restrict civil marriage rights, betrays a lack of understanding of our government and the constitutional process.

The Goodridge decision of the SJC is not the product of the "predilections of four unelected judges" as Mr. Ureneck suggests but rather it is an example of precisely how our founders expected our constitutions, both Massachusetts and federal to work.

The writers of our constitutions were very much concerned that our government not promote the democratic tyranny of the majority over minority rights. After much debate, they devised the judiciary system to be a separate and equal branch of the government charged with the responsibility to review and, if necessary overrule the actions of the executive and legislative branches.

In devising our legislative branch, the founders also sought to buffer the effects of unbridled popular will. Our representatives are not elected merely to rubber stamp the will of the majority, as if there were just instruments of some Gallup poll; they are elected to represent us but also to use their wisdom and judgment in weighting the popular sentiment.

This is why our constitutional form of government has survived for over 225 years and our country has prospered. Our system allows and encourages the protection and expansion of our civil rights to promote the maximum potential of all our citizens.

In the 1950s, a significant number of our states had laws that prohibited inter-racial marriage. These laws were supported by many religious leaders and probably a majority of the voters. I suspect were if not for judicial intervention many of these laws would still survive.

The laws regarding civil marriage in Massachusetts are governed by the state's constitution; civil marriage is a legal concept not a religious one, from which flows many civil rights and obligations. Our constitution should not be amended to explicitly legalize discrimination.

Finally, Mr. Ureneck suggested that Representative Walsh's previous vote to adjourn the 2002 Massachusetts Constitution Convention was improper and undemocratic. However Rep.Walsh was doing precisely what he was elected to do, i.e.: to use his understanding and judgment. I have not asked Representative Walsh how he will vote this time around but my experience with the representative has taught me that he will carefully think through this issue. I believe he votes with integrity and conviction.

President John F. Kennedy wrote a book about those judges, representatives, and ordinary citizens who were called on to act on their convictions rather than on popular prejudice; he titled his book, "Profiles in Courage."

Let us support our elected officials who attempt do the same.

Thomas H. Durand, Clam Point

Neighbors Not Impacted By Marriage to Partner
To the Editor:

My partner and I took a day off from work last week to go to the State House and ask our legislators, Rep. Finneran and Sen. Hart, not to support any amendment that will prohibit gay couples from marrying.

Not surprisingly, we met resistance in Rep. Finneran's office. One of Finneran's aides said that gay marriage was such a "hot topic" that the people deserved the right to vote on it. Why, I asked, do the people "deserve" the right to vote on something that does not affect them? No one in Focus on the Family, nor Archbishop O'Malley, nor even any of our neighbors in Cedar Grove will be affected by my partner's and my civil marriage. However, whether we can marry does, very concretely, affect us. Without a marriage license, we are not eligible for inheritance rights, hospital visitation, many insurance benefits, etc. Without marriage, it is much more difficult to protect each other as we grow older.

I think what people forget is that the right of couples to have a civil marriage is not about philosophical or religious theories or beliefs. Andi and I are not an "idea" - we are real people, with real lives, who are trying to live as decently as possible and plan for the future.

Actually, Andi and I were "married" in a church service this past fall. That didn't hurt anyone either. None of our neighbors in Cedar Grove even knew about it. I think what they do know is that we are a pleasant couple who take care of our home and who try to be considerate neighbors. Does anything else matter?

I believe there's a silent majority of people who don't really care whether gay people can marry. Unfortunately, Rep. Finneran seems to think that his district is full of anti-gay zealots who have nothing better to do than to deny gay people their rights. If you have not done so already, please take the time to let your representatives know that you appreciate your gay neighbors and that you support our right to be protected under the laws of this state.

One of the prayers at our commitment ceremony was that "all who witness these vows may find their own relationships strengthened." That's still our prayer.

Nora Harrington, Hillsdale Street

Letter to the Editor
Gay Lifestyle 'Selfish, Unhealthy, Abnormal'
To the Editor:

Since the beginning of recorded history, the institution of marriage has been defined, observed and accepted as the sacred union of a man and a woman. This has been one of societies constant and enduring absolutes. Marriage has always been the tie that has helped create, protect and preserve society as we know it. Absent the family unit, (a by-product of marriage), society would quickly self-destruct into a world of lawlessness and disorder.

We can confidently conclude this because the family unit sustains itself and by extension society, because of the values, beliefs and mores it places on its members. These same attributes are shared and postulated by other family units to create a society.

More recently however, the Mass. S.J.C. ruled in a 4-3 decision that marriage, by its current designation is unconstitutional because it doesn't afford equality to all. It has then given our legislators 180 days to change the laws to accommodate Gays wishing to marry. This being the case, does it stand to reason that in the near future a lesbian threesome would be allowed to wed? A brother and sister? A pedophile and a minor? Would these people be able to successfully argue before the courts that they have all been in long-term, loving, caring and sharing relationships? Would it be a hate crime to exclude these people from all the benefits and equal rights that heterosexual married couples enjoy? Would these people make a case that their legal unions would be beneficial to society?

Several years ago comedian Jerry Seinfeld used the disclaimer: "Not that there's anything wrong with that," in reference to his and George's sexuality. Actually, Jerry, everything's wrong with that. The homosexual lifestyle is a selfish, unhealthy, abnormal behavior.

How can same sex partners in good conscience desire to raise a child in a climate that will foster confusion in the child and ridicule from his peers? How can gays raise a child to grow up emotionally and mentally sound when these same people have suffered bouts of depression, suicidal tendencies, and a lifetime of therapy for their own conflicted lives. It takes the paternal/maternal instincts of a loving father and mother to strike a more perfect balance in the child. And how does this intrinsically evil lifestyle reconcile itself with the will of God, when He Himself calls this practice an abomination against nature and God. The courts can spin it, endorse it and legalize it, but it will still be wrong. You don't have to look any further than Roe v. Wade for proof.

Tom McKenna, Quincy, MA

Commentary
Consult The Owner's Manual
By James W. Dolan

It looks like gay marriages will soon be occurring in this state probably much to the chagrin of Senator John Kerry. It is hard enough to be elected president when you are viewed as a Massachusetts liberal but even harder when you represent the only state that permits gay marriage.

Unfortunately the Supreme Judicial Court's decision will confirm the view of many outside the state that Massachusetts is too far left. That perception will hurt Kerry and you can be sure the Republicans will capitalize on it.

One must commend the courage of the four-person majority that reached this decision. Knowing it would be controversial and that they would be criticized, they nonetheless did what they believed was right under the Massachusetts Constitution. Agree or not, it must have been a tough call. Some will argue that is why we need an independent judiciary others will claim the opposite.

I support civil unions but am opposed to gay marriage. The apparatus with which God equipped men and women was designed for a specific purpose. To use that apparatus contrary to its design and specifications may be enough to produce a civil union but a marriage assumes that the apparatus can and will be used in accordance with the manual.

One should not need much instruction to observe that Part A fits into Part B for the purpose of setting into motion a chain of events designed to produce children. The parts are compatible. That is not to say that the apparatus has failed when a child has not been conceived.

A couple who otherwise use the apparatus because they are both Part A or Part B and are therefore incapable of a "marital" union may nonetheless have a close and loving relationship deserving of legal protection. However, their parts are incompatible - the manual is gender specific, not gender neutral.

The different use of the parts is what distinguishes a marriage and a non-marriage. If the parts cannot be used in the manner for which they were intended, the relationship should be something other than a marriage. Marriage should exclusively be between a man and a woman because that's how the pieces are supposed to work. When they can't, it's something else.

That something else may be good and deserving of civil rights but it's not a marriage. Some non-sexual, long term, close relationships such as between family members or even close friends may also need legal protection. Sex is not necessarily a part of every loving relationship.

The fact that many gay relationships occur within the context of a heterosexual union - one party appearing to be the male (husband) and the other the female (wife) - further underscores the importance of at least the appearance of gender in the relationship. Although the parts are the same, they act like they are different.

Some say: "Who cares? What's the difference?" A television that can never produce a picture because it's not designed to do so is not the same as one that can. It may look like a television and have many of the characteristics of one but if it is not designed to at least have the potential of producing a picture, it's something else. It's a radio.

While you can bet the Supreme Judicial Court never heard this argument, I submit marriage is a television and a civil union is a radio. Both good, useful and worth protecting but not the same.

In its desire to be fair, I believe the court went too far in deciding gay marriage was a distinction without a difference. It overlooked the instruction manual that explains how the apparatus is supposed to work. To paraphrase that great legal scholar, Johnnie Cochran: "If the parts don't fit, no marriage writ."

By Rev. John O'Donnell
As citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts we are confronted with the question "What is a marriage?"

The Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth, in its narrow 4-3 ruling, declared a "right" to civil marriage for what is commonly called "same-sex unions."

I offer the following reflection so as to put the issue in a context of the philosophic and religious foundations of our western civilization.

The initial foundation for most of our responses to the questions we ask regarding what it means to be human, how to live in a society, the place of friendship and family, and how to explain rationally the nature of life on earth and its place in a broader universe of stars and planets came from Greek philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. They lived four hundred years before Christ's birth. Later Judaism and Christianity, guided by the events of their particular histories and by a process of Divine Revelation, would utilize the wisdom of the ancients to frame their faith understanding and response to these same questions. Western civilization was born from this mixture of faith and reason.

Yes, today we accept the witness of people from other parts of the world as they share their wisdom and contribute to our common understanding of these ancient questions.

Let me share with you the story that Plato, Socrates student, wrote twenty-four centuries ago about a conversation Socrates had with his friend Euthyphro. It may provide some insight to our own current dilemmas regarding the definition of marriage.

Socrates and Euthyphro met one day in front of the courthouse in the city of Athens. They began discussing what is pious...how are things determined to be right and good.

For the Greeks the meaning of piety was to honor the household gods of one's parents and ancestors. Thus, religion and family were intimately related.

Socrates asks Euthyphro the question "What is pious ...right and good?" Eughyphro gives the matter a little thought and responds, "Whatever the gods love."

Socrates observes that the gods therefore could love any and all things even if they contradict themselves. Anything could be pious...right and good... even it it is harmful to the individual and injurious to society. Thus, the gods would be making up things as they went along.

Socrates suggests instead that the gods love what is pious because it is right and good. He argues that even the gods must love and choose what is pious because of the intrinsic objective nature of what is right and good. Like humans the intelligence of these mythical gods is attracted to what is true and their will to what is good. They are free, like humans, to choose to do otherwise. However, they would be acting against their own good judgment. Their decisions would be purely subjective - whatever they love and choose. Nothing would be anchored in objective reality.

As the issue of the definition of marriages is debated in our Commonwealth we now play the roles that the mythical gods played in the culture of the ancient Greek society of Athens. In one instance we can choose whatever we want to declare to be the law and the definition of marriage. We, like Euthyphro, can give that power over to the gods of the Supreme Court or those of the Legislative branch of government to make things up as they go along...whatever they love and choose.

Or as Socrates keenly observed they, like the gods, can only love and choose what is right and good. To do otherwise is to violate what is, by its nature, the common sense reality around us. Yes, it is possible that our legislature can enact bad laws, or that our Supreme Court can overturn good legislation. However, these choices would not correspond to an objective reality ever how complex it may appear in the practical order of legislating and adjudicating. To do so would be folly.

The ancient philosopher Socrates framed the question correctly. Socrates concludes his discussion with Euthyphro saying, "We will meet again to discuss these issues."

Five centuries later during one of his missionary journeys, St. Paul visited the famous city of Athens. He stood in the marketplace not far from the courthouse and the pantheon - the temple of the ancient Greek gods.

To the gathered assembly St. Paul observes that in the temple that there is a shrine to "the unknown god." He explains that this unknown god is the one true god made known to the people of Israel. The face of this hidden god was revealed in the person of Jesus the Christ. He tells them the story of Jesus. They are polite but skeptical. They agree at the conclusion of their conversation saying, "We will meet again to discuss these questions."

Just as the ancient philosopher Socrates framed the question correctly so too St. Paul frames an answer as he points to the God of creation - the unknown god of the Greeks.

Our religious faith tradition has guided us wisely as to the answer to the question of what is pious - right and good. Our religious faith tradition has also guided us wisely as to the answer to the question regarding the definition of marriage.

We will meet another day to discuss this question.

- Rev. John O'Donnell
Parochial Vicar
St. Gregory Parish