E-Mail This Article to a Friend Enemies of justice (continued)

Hobbib: We must not make the same error about same-sex marriage. Decisions about marriage must be made in the democratic way guaranteed by the Constitution — through full public debate in the light of day, not by a swing vote of one unelected judge behind a closed door.

What error? Discounted by Hobbib is the fact that when the court received a request from the Massachusetts Senate for an advisory opinion clarifying its ruling on gay marriage, it asked for and received numerous amicus curiae briefs from people and groups against and in favor of the court’s ruling on the constitutionality of gay marriage. The court then took several weeks to reconsider its ruling before issuing its second opinion, which made explicitly clear the basis of its initial decision. The argument that there has not been a chance for open debate conveniently ignores the facts. Again, it is not the lack of public debate or a fair chance to be heard that Hobbib and the others, including legislators, are now complaining about. Rather, our system of government delivered a decision that he and those who share his views simply don’t like.

Hobbib: Further questions abound. Do we sufficiently understand the impact on families of the same-sex marriage legislation before us? Today, one-third of all children and more than two-thirds of all African-American children are born out of wedlock, and 40 percent of the black youth under age 18 live in poverty. In Scandinavia, where same-sex unions have been in place for a decade or more, nearly 60 percent of children are now born to unmarried parents. With the state of the family in the United States having been in decline since the 1960s, will this further diminish our families for the next generation? Can we afford the risks and costs to children and to society?

Assuming that those on all sides want to enhance families and better our society, let us not rush toward an uninformed decision that could further undermine the fragile nature of families.

The above is hogwash. The so-called decline of what is commonly referred to as the nuclear family in the US has nothing to do with whether couples of the same sex should be allowed to marry. The "possible consequences" — code: gays are bad — to the children raised in non-nuclear family units, gay or otherwise, is also specious. Indeed, based on his concerns about the decline of the "state of the family" in the US, Hobbib should be advocating changing the laws and the criteria under which heterosexuals should or should not be allowed to marry. How many times should they be allowed to marry, and how many children should they be allowed to have? And everyone should be allowed to vote on it. After all, it is the breakdown of traditional marriage — which has, thus far, been exclusively the right of heterosexuals — that Hobbib is referring to; and that breakdown has extended even to members of his own faith.

Hobbib: Franklin D. Roosevelt said our continued liberty is assured by "a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its control over the government." Tomorrow our legislators should follow the lead of the legislatures of Hawaii and Alaska by taking back their rightful authority and allowing all citizens to participate in deciding the nature of family. And the SJC — like these courts before it — should further stay its order to allow for this.

Massachusetts citizens have ample time and strength to "maintain control" over state government. They can certainly throw out of office any legislator who doesn’t vote the way they want at the constitutional convention. The SJC is clearly not going to stay its order, nor should it — and no other attempt by the legislature will ultimately delay the implementation of gay marriage. Thus, it appears that the overarching objective of the Hobbibites will be to force the annulment or divorce of any marriages that take place as a result of the SJC’s landmark decision. And if it can’t be done here, Hobbib and his masters and minions will join the bandwagon of a Bush-promoted amendment to the US Constitution.

Hobbib: The final decision and its far-reaching implications should be decided by a democratic vote of the people of the state, with the appropriate level of study and public debate that a constitutional amendment vote would require.

The only "appropriate level of study" that Hobbib would agree with is one which leads to the end he advocates.

Most painful in what Hobbib has written — a not-so-thinly-disguised tract of divisiveness and hate-mongering — is the realization that there are so many people in our community and country who feel threatened and frightened by those who are not exactly like them. In the 228 years since the American Revolution and since the adoption of the Massachusetts Constitution, this nation has struggled with and worked hard to eliminate bigotry of every stripe. Despite our legal and (at least on the surface) societal successes, when we are confronted by an issue such as gay marriage — which when examined dispassionately asks only that all citizens of the United States of America be regarded equally and that equal rights under the law be extended to all citizens — it becomes shockingly apparent how deep-seated our enmity is toward those who are different. It is no wonder that we still need affirmative-action laws and organizations such as the ACLU, the NAACP, the ADL and others that fight to protect the rights of citizens of every stripe — especially from the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the Hobbibites and others of their ilk.

It is hard to believe that in his own life experience, Hobbib — if he is married and if he has children — has not lived in a community where some of his neighbors are divorced, and yet his marriage did not collapse; nor is it possible to imagine that some friends of his children don’t come from divorced, single-parent homes, and yet they have not been diseased. It is also highly likely that Hobbib and members of his family have unknowingly interacted or worked with a gay man or lesbian with whom they shared many things in common — and no infectious virus enveloped them.

No, no matter how opponents of gay marriage — including those who advocate the separate-but-equal status of civil unions — frame their arguments, it is clear that they do so solely for irrational reasons, reasons that encourage, rather than discourage, the continuation of fear and bigotry in our country. That is sad. The 2000 Census estimated there were about 19,000 gay couples in Massachusetts, and about 659,000 nationwide — so ask yourself, how can so few threaten so many?

Hobbib, how do you answer?

Stephen M. Mindich is publisher and chair of the Phoenix Media/Communications Group.