By Senator Jack Hart

The Massachusetts' legislature has recently engaged in an important debate on the subject of gay marriage. Perhaps mirroring the electorate, the Legislature has been divided, unable to reach resolution on this very significant issue. Emotions run high on both sides of the discussion and, understandably, tempers have flared. As your state senator, I am called upon in this instance to use my 'best judgment', to respect the deeply held beliefs and opinions of those on both sides of the argument, and to vote on what I believe to be the best resolution to this difficult dilemma.

For thousands of years marriage has existed only between a man and a woman. This is the basic, fundamental definition of marriage. Marriage is the bedrock upon which our society rests. Forces like divorce and the pressures of modern life may challenge it, but the strength and power of marriage are testaments to the institution's endurance and longevity. The people of Massachusetts respect and hold dear the traditional meaning of marriage. To redefine it would be a mistake.

On the other hand, we cannot continue to deny gay people the basic rights they deserve. That has always been my stance. We must guarantee them every right that others in our society are afforded. Our society cannot banish a sector of its population to permanent second-class citizenship. Besides the practical difficulties that people in same sex relationships face, think of the burden of prejudice and injustice. As open and tolerant as our society is today, pockets of hate and discrimination still exist. The government, as a force for positive social change, must therefore do everything in its power to make Massachusetts a truly just and humane place for all of its citizens, no matter their race, creed, gender, national origin or sexual orientation.

Civil Unions are the answer. They respect the historic meaning of marriage, while providing justice and benefits to same sex couples. Civil unions recognize that same sex unions are fundamentally different from marriage. Not worse, not 'less than', just different. It is a different name for a different type of relationship. Same-sex unions will have all the benefits and privileges of married couples including the equal protection and due process clauses of our Constitution. This is a long overdue achievement for gay couples; currently only Vermont legally recognizes such a relationship. Among the benefits that will be available to partners who enter into a civil union are automatic inheritance rights, preference for becoming a partner's guardian if the partner is incapacitated, and protection from discrimination in insurance and credit. Also, civil unions provide partners the right to hospital visitation, and a preference for making health care decisions without having to execute a Health Care Proxy. For this reason, I voted consistently in favor of amendments that accomplished both tasks, defining marriage as between a man and a woman and also creating civil unions. In fact, my preferred alternative was the so-called Travaglini/Lees amendment, which not only defined marriage as between a man and a woman, but also would guarantee civil unions in the Massachusetts Constitution providing the benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities as are granted currently to spouses in a marriage. Both Senators Jarrett Barrios and Dianne Wilkerson, leading advocates for gay marriage, also supported this amendment.

I remain a strong proponent of this position, now before the Constitutional Convention in the form of the 'Travaglini/Finneran' amendment. By comparison, my position is also consistent with all the leading democratic presidential candidates. Senator John Kerry himself stated: "I'm for civil unions. I'm for partnership rights. I think what ought to condition this debate is not the term marriage as much as the rights that people are afforded."

Both sides in this debate are taking an all or nothing stance and framing the issue as "you're either with us or against us". Some have characterized the goal of compromise as being mean spirited and discriminatory while others think it is not restrictive enough. That is unfortunate. The truly reasonable course, really the only course, to be taken in this situation is a compromise. This is the rational, responsible position. While some may suggest that this is the politically expedient stance, I instead assert that it is the right answer - not a view casually adopted to please the greatest number of people. It's the correct action to take. America has a long and venerable history of compromise, from the great statesman Henry Clay, to former President Bill Clinton. As Edmund Burke, the leading 18th century political theorist stated: "as every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act, &emdash;is founded on compromise and barter."

In this instance, a civil union is the appropriate resolution. While protecting the traditional meaning of marriage, civil unions also afford gay people important rights and privileges that they deserve as full and equal members of our society. Passing an amendment that grants gay people civil unions while protecting the traditional meaning of marriage, and then allowing the people to vote on that amendment in 2006, as is proscribed by the constitution, is the reasonable, appropriate, even the democratic thing to do.

Senator Hart respresents that First Suffolk district, which includes South Boston, Dorchester and Mattapan.

To the Editor,

It is unusual for me to feel the need to participate in all the public discussions about gay marriage, but these are unusual times and the topic is one that affects me as an individual and as an advocate of "the gay agenda".

In the most simple of terms, the gay agenda is nothing more than to be treated fairly and take advantage of the same rights and share the same responsibilities as our friends, neighbors and families. All the talk about "special treatment" is just talk. Twenty-four years ago, when i opened cedar grove gardens and needed a variance, few, if any, knew that i was gay. I enjoyed and appreciated getting to know my neighbors, soliciting their support and answering questions. Most supported me at the board of appeal, some did not. Some of those that opposed me had legitimate concerns, others used arguments that were somewhat suggestive, not gay related,to my knowledge, that they might consider selling to unwanted groups if i was allowed to open. the threat of change sometimes makes people say foolish things and act accordingly. The supreme court has the duty and responsibility to uphold the constitution. At times the document is clear and at times the document requires interpretation. They have the duty to make that decision and have done so in the goodrich case. I have yet to hear a non-religious, non-emotional reason as to why this decision was wrong I have been involved with the same partner for eighteen years. We own and take care of three properties in this neighborhood. We hire neighborhood residents to work in our establishments. We involve ourselves in many civic groups. We support local religious organizations, scout troops, non-profits. We pay property taxes, state taxes, social security taxes. In short, we participate. How do we threaten those that accuse us of being a threat? Why should a heterosexual spouse be entitled to survivor benefits, visitation rights, inheritance rights, along with one thousand other rights that have not been available to us? Is that what you call fair and equal? To those that argue the "sanctity" issue in regards to this civil issue and the civil rights that are confered by public recognition of same sex relationships, i can only say that you are entitled to have your relationships blessed by the church to which you belong. That is your priviledge. Nobody wants to take that privledge away from you. Our legislative leaders have failed to legislate over the past decade. Every time the senate would vote on a domestic partner/ civil union bill, it would die in committee in the house never to be voted on. Where were all those people who now chant " let the people vote" when the peoples representatives weren't given the opportunity to vote?

I've known tommy finneran, my rep, for nearly a lifetime. I've been in touch on gay issues with him over the years. I've been in touch regarding community issues as well. I feel no need to overlook all the good he has done for this district and i thank him. He has always been available through a courteous staff to hear from his constituents. However, on this issue and during this debate, i feel no need to apologize for saying that his behavior at the start of last week's convention was less than stellar and an embarassment to me and numerous constituents in his district. For him to call the sjc arrogant and libelous is like the pot calling the kettle black. The sjc, or a majority of its members, did nothing more than use the power given them and fulfill the responsibilties required of them and made a lawful decision. We all know how effective tommy has been using his power. There are some people that always want to beat him up for it. I've always respected people that used their power to push their causes and i still do, including tommy. I'm getting involved openly now, because i disagree with tommy on this very important issue and i ask all of us to open our eyes and look around. Look at your neighbors, talk to them, we all have something to learn. We should all treat one another with respect, dignity and equality.

Richard o'mara, Cedar grove gardens

By Rev. John O'Donnell

"Reconfiguration" became a new word in Catholic-speak along with "Hail Mary pass" and "second collection" when Archbishop Sean O'Malley announced in December a pastoral plan for the reconfiguration of resources to re-build the Archdiocese. He persuasively states the case for envisioning an appropriate mission in these early decades of the new century. Unlike the traditional Catechism this is an odd instance when the answer "Reconfiguration" comes before the question "Will my parish be closed?"

In a public letter to parishioners Archbishop Sean cited the reasons for such a huge enterprise. The growing shortage of clergy to staff parishes is primary. He also notes that in the urban cities the age and condition of churches and parish buildings is in stark evidence. Another critical reason is the inability of a good number of parishes - urban and suburban - to meet current budgets and to plan for capital expenditures. We all have witnessed the decline in church attendance and the demographic shifts as folks follow the expressway south and north to the cities and towns on the outer rim of Boston.

No doubt the sex abuse scandal that rocked the Archdiocese and the nation has wrought a double curse of lowering morale among clergy and laity alike - as well as stretching Archdiocesan financial resources to its inability to pick up the tab for parishes when their annual budgets are in arrears.

In early January a process of consultation was initiated with the intent of gathering parish representatives into a series of meetings within each Vicariate at the level of a smaller cluster of four or five parishes. Two decisive, and perhaps divisive, questions were to be answered. First, "If one parish in your cluster was to be suppressed (closed) what pastoral plans would the other parishes make?" Secondly, "If two or more parish were to be suppressed what pastoral plans would the remaining parishes make?"

These questions are simple enough for polite discussions at cocktail parties or as part of a quiet parlor room game. However, the stakes are raised considerably when, in a potentially painful process, the name of a neighboring parish is actually proposed as the "what if" nominee, or your own parish faces the threatening possibility of being designated as one of several "what if" candidates.

During the month of February representatives from the four Dorchester parishes of the southern cluster - St. Ann, St. Brendan, St. Gregory and St. Mark - met in a series of assemblies to respond to these two questions and to determine their advisory recommendations and pastoral plans. The outcome from these cluster assemblies is advisory and not a final decision.

In the more than ninety clusters throughout the Archdiocese, Final Reports were to be prepared and sent to the local Vicar who presides over a larger area of several clusters. In his advisory capacity the Vicar suggests his own recommendations and, in turn, sends them on to the Regional Bishop. Each of the five Regional Bishops reviews the Final Reports and the Vicars' recommendations. With oversight for seventy or more parishes the Regional Bishops author their advisory recommendation to the Archbishop and a Central Committee.

It is anticipated that the Archbishop will begin announcing his final decisions regarding the suppression (closing) of parishes in the early spring. How many parishes will be closed? Perhaps fifty to a hundred parishes will be designated. Which parishes will draw the short straws? No one knows. Will my parish be closed? Only God knows and she isn't telling anyone.

How were the meetings of the southern cluster conducted? You asked the right person. As the Convener for our four parishes I designed different scenarios for conducting our meetings. During that time I experienced all the angst and anxiety that pastors and parishioners felt. With the advice of those whom I consulted a series of three meetings was proposed.

The first meeting was held on Tuesday evening, February 4th at St. Gregory's auditorium when over sixty Parish Council and Finance Committee members, principals and School Board representatives along with parish staff and pastors from the four parishes assembled. I presented an overview of the diocesan-wide consultation process, as well as a preview of our remaining meetings. Each parish made a ten-minute presentation of their strengths and of what they cherished and would want to see continued if they were to be suppressed. Yes, one could feel the pulse of anxieties that permeated the room.

The second forum, held a week later, on Tuesday, February 10th was conducted in the Notre Dame Room in the former St. Gregory's girls' high school. A smaller delegation of seven or so representatives (Leadership Teams) from each of the cluster parishes entered into a prayerful process of discernment. Questions were asked and responses made among the participants. A procedure was designed that allowed each parish delegation to caucus to determine its one vote during each of several rounds of polling. Tallies of the secret ballots were displayed after each round. Time was given to explore both of these difficult questions. The three hour process was non-confrontational and the exchanges most civil.

This past Tuesday evening, February 24th at St. Ann's Parish Hall the concluding meeting was convened to review the Final Report with its advisory recommendations and pastoral plans. Hope was expressed by the participants that special consideration would be given to parishes with schools. The report was approved by the four Pastors and their Leadership Teams.

Carole Pidgon, a representative from St. Ann's Parish, keenly observed that before these meetings "I never knew what went on in the other parishes. No matter what happens - and nothing may happen that will result in the closing of any of our four parishes - we will never be the same. We all will be challenged to explore new ways of working together. We were strangers before - momentarily adversaries - and now sympathetic neighbors."

And that, my friends, is at the heart of reconfiguration!

(Rev. John O'Donnell is Associate Pastor at St. Gregory Parish, Lower Mills.)

By Rev. Msgr. Thomas J. McDonnell

There is no doubt that familiarity and routine can dull our sensitivities and appreciation. This is true in the spiritual life as well as in other areas of interpersonal relationships. One might think of the Gospel scene where Jesus has dinner with Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7, 36-50). The fact that Jesus joined him in his house and accepted his hospitality would indicate not only that they knew one another but also that there was some type of a bond of friendship between them. Generally speaking, one does not invite strangers to share one's table.

On the other hand, as the scene unfolds, Jesus chides Simon for not offering the common courtesies of the time: "I entered your house, you gave me no water for my feet…You gave me no kiss…You did not anoint my head with oil…" What led to this oversight? In the context of the account we may legitimately make the observation that Simon did not appreciate the presence of the Lord and what such should mean for him. And a further question arises: Why?

Admittedly when one tries to discern motivations for activity which took place 2,000 years ago, one enters into the realm of imaginative speculation. But I also believe that within certain boundaries imagination can play a part in interpreting Sacred Scripture. And in my mind, I am convinced that it was Simon's long-time familiarity with the Lord which led to his spiritual dullness. Jesus had probably eaten with Simon before and because of such familiarity a certain routine had entered into their relationship.

The effects of routine are a perennial temptation for the followers of Jesus in every age. Its manifestations are both visible (the careless, approach to and dress at sacred ceremonies) and subtle the careless, disrespectful dismissal of the Church which, despite its failings remains the Body of Christ. Because the Church's liturgical year is cyclical, it can easily happen that its yearly repetitions can dull our sensitivity to its importance and the message the Church is trying to convey. At the very least, from my observation, this attitude has led to a lack of enthusiasm for pursuing the ideals which the Church proposes during this grace-filled season of Lent.

Traditionally, Lent has been a time to emphasize the need for penance, personal prayer and almsgiving. These are the spiritual banisters which we are called to hold onto and to assist us on our climb to sanctity. At the beginning of this season, it might help us to try to decode for ourselves the reason why the Church proposes this ascetic.

Because of "the triumph of the therapeutic" and the prominence of the pleasure principle in our society, we will place great emphasis on the need for personal penance. St. Augustine had a rather unique approach to the beatitudes. He interpreted each individual beatitude in the light of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. More specifically, he felt that the words of Christ "blessed are those who mourn" have an intimate relation with the gift of knowledge. At first, such may seem strange. But the more we reflect upon his insight, the more it seems to make sense.

We might begin by taking time to kneel before the Crucifix. During the controversy surrounding the Gibson film "The Passion," one of the truths that the Church is emphasizing is that it was and is our own sins which led the Lord to embrace the Cross and to offer His life to reconcile us to the Father.

If nothing else, the graphic portrayal of the suffering of the Lord which Gibson captures should lead us to personal penance. I believe that this is the proper context in which to interpret St. Paul's command: "Present your bodies as a living sacrifice to God" (Rom. 12,1). He is calling for a personal, penitential response to the Cross.

As we look at the world around us, there are multiple reasons which should cause us to mourn. There is too much poverty, too much hunger, too much violence. Who cannot be moved to tears? And this automatically leads us to the next part of our Lenten ascetic…prayer. St. Paul urged us to "weep with those who weep." We must be ceaselessly praying for those who suffer and for the insights to create economic and social structures which will alleviate peoples' pain.

John Donne was correct when he wrote: "No man is an island, entire of itself…" And later he points to the "catholic" dimension of spirituality which must become part of our prayer-life: "I am involved in mankind."

There is an ancient axiom that states we become what we do. With modification, I believe that this is true. In the spiritual realm, it certainly has an application. It is true that the more generously we give the more pronounced the image of God - a God whose nature is self-giving - becomes in our person.