"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serves you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

- Edmund Burke, 1729-1797

The current debate over the definition of marriage is proving to be a highly contentious one. Even as the legislature prepared to respond this week to the state supreme court ruling on gay marriage, both sides of the debate were ratcheting up the rhetoric.

To hear some of the opponents, you would imagine the measure would lead to the dissolution of the society. Churchmen in particular have been taking an outspoken role, advocating against the court ruling and in favor of a definition of marriage based solely on a union between one man and one woman.

At one level, the debate is a welcome and necessary one: These are important issues, and they urgently need a full public discussion and some mannered discourse. On these community comment pages in recent weeks, The Reporter has encouraged people in this community to make themselves heard on the subject, pro and con. This newspaper has published every signed comment that could be verified, on both sides. Dorchester people deserve that.

But there is an onerous side to the current debate, one that is very troubling and perhaps more dangerous: it is the mean-spirited sense of divisiveness that some advocates have taken.

On one side, some have argued that the Catholic church is using the issue as a smokescreen, to divert attention from its sorry child abuse scandal of recent years, as well as from the expected abandonment of many local parish churches. That argument rests on a view of Archbishop O'Malley as some sort of modern-day Machiavelli. It is an unwarranted and unfortunate description of this good and holy man.

Meanwhile, some opponents of the court ruling have sought to make the debate a test of a person's worth. There have been reports that one local pastor has moved beyond the religious issue and preached political opposition from the pulpit. Others have suggested withholding communion from politicians who, as a matter of conscience, dare to support gay marriage. How sad to see Christian churches emphasizing Old Testament retribution in place of New Testament charity. And how dangerous it is to rely on political judgments in our pluralist society being dictated from one or another religion.

As often occurs, the extremists become the focus of attention, and the issue, and the people most effected become lost in the argument.

Maybe, just maybe, there is a silver lining here. It is conceivable that the current public attention on the court's gay marriage ruling will remind our otherwise recalcitrant neighbors that our democratic society only works well when citizens become involved. It is to be hoped that the citizenry has judged wisely when selecting public officials to serve in public office. Too often, politicians are at their worst when relying solely on opinion polls and perceived public sentiment.

It is on issues such as the one before us today - the great and important issues of what is right and what is wrong - that we send a few from among us to craft the laws that guide society. If in the midst of the maelstrom politicians stand up for what they believe is right, they are doing their jobs.

If some from their constituency disagree, it's their right to challenge them - at the ballot box.

It is the pol whose personal beliefs are sacrificed to the exigencies of a re-election campaign who are unworthy of our admiration.

-Ed Forry