An anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution, one intended to reverse the 2003 decision of the Supreme Judicial Court legalizing gay marriage will not appear on the ballot in November in '08. The religious right, led by Focus on the Family's state political affiliate, the Massachusetts Family Institute, and their main allies, the Catholic Bishops of Massachusetts were unable to muster the necessary 50 votes in the legislature to place the divisive measure on the general election ballot. It is not likely that the religious right here in Massachusetts will ever have the mojo to get anywhere near the ballot again; and their biggest anti-gay wedge issue has been largely neutralized.

This will be rightfully celebrated as a  profound and historic victory for gay rights. But it is a far wider victory than meets the eye, and one that merits some discussion.

Since the 2003 court decision legalizing same sex marriage, the simple fact was that no one could point to anything bad happening. Public resistance and suspicious grew to acceptance and support. All is calm here in Massachusetts, except for those who adhere to a politics of hate and fear. Political leaders across the country can now look to Massachusetts where we stood down demagogic bigotry. Most Democratic and Republican pols and most of the electorate are no longer cowed by dire, apocalyptic warnings of social turmoil over marriage equality. No one believes them. We know better.

What's more, even in an era where leading Democrats are busy pandering to conservative evangelicals and Catholics, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Ted Kennedy reportedly called wavering Dems, noting among other things, what a divisive distraction the measure would be in the '08 election.

The religious right has sought to conflate their particular social wedge issues with "faith" itself, when clearly there is no one "faith" perspective on any of them. It could be, that today's vote is a watershed moment in ending that false framing of faith.

More than three quarters of the legislature including GOP Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei and GOP House Minority Leader Bradley Jones 151 of them to 45 others, refused to be bullied into placing the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian people up for plebiscite. There were a number of legislators who hail from more conservative districts who had voted for the amendment previously -- who courageously changed their vote to no.  They will be remembered for their principled turn abouts and will be supported if an electoral backlash rears its ugly head.

The retrograde Catholic Bishops of Massachusetts called the vote "tragic." And ignoring the Republican leaders who opposed the amendment and the Democrats who supported it -- castigated "the leadership of the Democratic Party."

"... the leadership of the Democratic Party refuses to allow citizens and elected officials to vote their conscience on social issues. Their ideological positions undermine the common good. Today, the common good has been sacrificed by the extreme individualism that subordinates what is best for children, families and society."

Aside from the stridently partisan tone of what is supposed to be a non-partisan church, what is remarkable is their gross distortion of the process of constitutional change in Massachusetts. Proposed amendments may be brought to the voters via several means. The one chosen by the proponents -- including the Bishops -- meant that they had to get one quarter of the legislature in each of two successive legislative sessions to agree that it should be put before the voters. This is a deliberative process that takes time and cannot be steamrollered by the hotheads of the day.

The legislature is under no obligation to send any proposed amendment on to the voters. In fact, we count on them to think about it and move forward only those amendments that are truly worthy of public consideration, (not merely rubber stamp the agenda of the religious right, the Catholic Bishops, and the national GOP)and to serve as a firewall against our worst tendencies. The Bishops and their allies failed to scale that low and reasonable hurdle. More than three quarters of the legislature recognized that this amendment served no public good and ought not be used to further divide and inflame us against one another. The legislature indeed advance the common good -- over a narrow sectarian agenda. And we are grateful.  

The New York Times reports:  

Same-sex marriage supporters said the vote reflected recent changes in the makeup of the legislature, the election of Governor Patrick, and an all-out lobbying effort by national and local gay rights groups.

That seems like a fair summary to me. Pro-marriage equality legislators have been steadly elected to the legislature in recent years at the expense of those opposed; and the pro-equality forces have out organized and out persuaded the antis.  

I want to highlight the role of Governor Patrick because his short political career is a national model for mainstream pols who may be tempted to pander to the religious right under the tutelage of political consultants who don't know any better, or who in fact share many of the views of the religious right themselves.

Deval Patrick started out his campaign for the Democratic nomination in 2006 with zero name recognition and ran as a forthright and passionate advocate of marriage equality and of abortion rights. He decisively won the party convention, the primary and the general election. He led on this issue not only with moral clarity and principled advocacy for equality -- but as a pragmatic, Democratic governor, who wanted to settle the matter once and for all so we could get on with the business of the state and the many pressing matters we face. The religious right, on the other hand, wanted to gay-bait Democrats nationally via the referendum process. Patrick's cool, clear and unwaveringly principled leadership on this in my view, made a decisive difference. In contrast, those pols who pander to the agenda of the religious right on reproductive rights, gay and lesbian civil rights, and separation of church and state -- will live forever in fear of the religious right and lose their political bearings.

The concerns of the religious community have always been far broader than the wedge issues of the religious right. We look to our elected officials to be able to be able to see beyond such parochialisms. Deval Patrick fearlessly led us out of the gridlock on marriage -- in the name of equality and getting on with the pressing business of fixing roads, developing alternative energy sources, and addressing poverty, health care and public education among the many things that matter most to everyone in the Commonwealth -- including those conservatives who disagree with him on marriage equality.

But the religious right and the GOP have not invested so much on this issue to give up on it now. Indeed, former Governor Mitt Romney is already making noises about trying to move the proposed federal marriage amendment.

But through the fog of the GOP and religious right talking points, it is important to keep in mind that the state already recognizes the civil equality of gays and lesbians in matters of citizenship, employment, housing and other aspects of public life. The amendment would have carved out an explicit exception to the equality we otherwise recognize, based on the views of particular religious groups, primarily the Catholic hierarchy, and conservative evangelicals.

It is also true that major religious groupings here -- the United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalism, and Reform Judaism recognize same sex marriages and perform religious ceremonies. All three have been pioneers in recognizing openly gay clergy as well. The UCC is the largest protestant denomination in the state -- the direct descendant of the Congregational churches of the colonial era whose white buildings still stand tall on town commons and decorate New England calendars. (The religious right doesn't like us to remember that.)

Meanwhile, the fog generated by antigay activists notwithstanding, marriage is a civil matter, licensed by the state. There are both religious and non-religious ceremonies and officiators. No religious group is required to perform any marriage, gay or strait, so the question then becomes -- why should the state recognize the marriages of one religious group and not others? Religious freedom, freedom of conscience, and equality of all citizens stands clearly on the side of equality in marriage.

The defeat of the amendment is a tremendous victory for religious freedom and separation of church and state.

The religious right & the Bishops may not give up, of course. They can petition to get a referendum on the ballot in 2012, but I think it is most unlikely that they will ever get close to having the necessary votes in the legislature.

At least in Massachusetts, it's all over but the shouting.