E-Mail This Article to a Friend John Kerry for president (continued)

OVER THE PAST 150 or so years, the United States Constitution has been amended to expand fundamental human rights. Slavery was outlawed. Due process under law was guaranteed to all, as was the right to vote — to all men — whether they had been slaves or not. In 1920 women were finally given to right join men at the polls. This march toward progress was marked by many detours, to be sure — most significantly the rule of Jim Crow, which until well past the middle of the 20th century terrorized and marginalized so many black Americans.

Now President Bush seeks to scuttle progress toward equal rights for all. He has called on Congress to "promptly pass" an amendment to the US Constitution explicitly prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying. Citing the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision granting lesbian and gay couples the right to marry, as well as the move by San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Bush claimed: "Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country."

Bush fails to say what those "serious consequences" would be. He fails to do so because there would be none. No, Bush’s call for a constitutional amendment is the calculated act of a cynical politician eager to court the votes of right-wing bigots — four million of whom stayed home on Election Day 2000. In order to win re-election, Bush needs those voters to come to the polls in 2004. And he is so lacking in either vision or principle that he is willing to allow the Constitution once again to be infused with bigotry.

The battle to defeat this noxious and hateful provision — which would deny people who love someone of the same sex the benefits and rights granted to those who love someone of another sex — will be long, divisive, and bitter. It will also be marked with moments of bravery, such as Mayor Newsom’s courageous act of civil disobedience in challenging prevailing California state law. And acts of high principle, such as the Massachusetts high-court ruling. In moving forward, we offer a word of caution to those who will be leading the charge on behalf of civil rights: these battles are won by using many different strategies that will influence both the court of law and the court of public opinion. Publicly denouncing one strategy over another, as Congressman Barney Frank and Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus co-chair Arline Isaacson did this week in criticizing Newsom’s decision to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, is not the way to proceed. Let’s not give aid and comfort to right-wing haters like Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, and the Family Research Council, all of which are leading the charge to amend the Constitution (see "Right Angle," News and Features, February 20).

IN WHAT can only be described as a stinging rebuke to House Speaker Tom Finneran, a US District Court three-judge panel has ruled unanimously in favor of a lawsuit challenging the state House of Representative’s redistricting of the 6th, 11th, and 12th Suffolk House Districts and found that the new district lines violate the federal Voting Rights Act.

Most damaging to Finneran, who represents the 12th Suffolk House District — which shed heavily black portions of Mattapan and acquired largely white areas of Milton and Dorchester under the redistricting plan, turning the district’s eligible African-American voters from a majority into a minority (see "Back to the Drawing Board?" News and Features, November 7, 2003, available online at www.bostonphoenix.com) — the court only barely stopped short of accusing him of lying under oath: "Although Speaker Finneran denied any involvement in the redistricting process, the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests the opposite conclusion."

The court has ruled that these districts must be redrawn before the fall elections can proceed. The judges also concluded that "the House was comfortable with manipulating district lines to benefit two white incumbents without pausing to investigate the consequences of its actions for minority voting opportunities. Once again, race was used as a tool to ensure the protection of incumbents."

Finneran’s fiddling with the redistricting process has backfired in a big way. Let’s hope this court decision is another step toward ending the House Speaker’s egotistical reign of arrogance. Last summer, he was forced to yank his "reform" bill when it became clear that it would have awarded still more raises to his leadership team. And Finneran’s high-handed maneuver at the constitutional convention — when he took advantage of Senate president Robert Travaglini’s generous move permitting him to make opening remarks by introducing his own anti-gay amendment — enraged Travaglini, Senator Brian Lees, and many state representatives. Finneran’s abuses are starting to pile up in an obvious way. He is already one of the longest-serving House Speakers in state history. It’s time to close that chapter.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com