High court, gay marriage and justice | M. Charles Bakst | Rhode Island news | projo.com | The Providence Journal

High court, gay marriage and justice M. Charles Bakst Rhode Island news projo.com The Providence Journal

High court, gay marriage and justice
01:00 AM EST on Thursday, December 13, 2007
I decry the state Supreme Court ruling that two Providence women wed in Massachusetts can’t get a Rhode Island divorce.
But while it is an immediate setback to the cause of marriage equality here, it may in the long run prove a help.
The 3-to-2 decision leaves the two women in legal limbo unless one of them wants to move to the Bay State and live there for a year.
I hope the ruling shakes legislators here from their obstinancy or complacency toward legalizing same-sex weddings in Rhode Island. Many who find the topic uncomfortable undoubtedly have rationalized their hands-off attitude by thinking, “What’s the big deal? Those folks can just zip into Massachusetts, marry there, return here, and all will be fine.”
The Supreme Court ruling makes it clear that the situation is more complicated than that.
House Majority Leader Gordon Fox, who is gay, is “disappointed” in the decision. He says he’s researching what the General Assembly should do in response. An obvious idea: Pass a law allowing Family Court to grant divorces in such cases.
But it would be better if the legislators went further, squarely confronting the broader issues of equality and dignity and legalized gay marriage here.
The Supreme Court majority said its hands were tied, that legislators, passing the law creating the Family Court in 1961, understood marriage to be between a man and a woman and that Rhode Island laws generally view the topic that way. But the high court dissenters offered their brethren an out: All they had to do was say the two women before them were lawfully wed in Massachusetts and the Family Court can grant a divorce whether the marriage is valid here or not.
The Rev. Eugene Dyszlewski of the Riverside Congregational Church, who signed a brief on behalf of the women, is disheartened that the justices couldn’t see their way clear to granting them relief. Further, “In the text of their ruling they missed their opportunity to make a statement about the civil rights of lesbians and gays. After all, isn’t upholding civil rights the moral obligation of the court? Compassion was trumped by aversion to risk.”
Jenn Steinfeld of Marriage Equality RI says, “This ruling makes it clear that the path to equality goes directly through the Rhode Island General Assembly … I certainly hope that our court’s decision will spur some of our fair-minded, yet more reluctant, legislators to take action.”
Governor Carcieri, who opposes gay marriage, says any move to allow it should be subject to a referendum because it’s “such an important question.”
Steinfeld calls Republican Carcieri’s referendum idea “outrageous.” And she’s right. It also smacks of inconsistency. In 2004, the governor, a casino foe, raged against lawmakers who voiced problems with a casino but said the public should decide. Carcieri said, “We’ve got a representative form of democracy. People are elected to do their homework … and not just toss the ball, if you will, or punt, to the voters.”
Gay marriage is not a complex issue and its arrival would not revolutionize life here. It’s a simple issue of fairness, and suggesting it go to referendum makes it seem like a threat and a bigger deal than it would be.
I believe legalization would carry in a referendum, at least if the debate were even-handed and calm. But more likely a referendum would engender bitterness and divisiveness, and who needs that? Rhode Island has a legislature — dominated, incidentally, by Democrats. The lawmakers should stand up for something.
M. Charles Bakst is The Journal’s political columnist.
mbakst@projo.com