Why marriage matters

In part, marriage is a rite of passage. It's a moment when we stand before witnesses and say, "This is the one!"

But far more important than the symbolic aspects of marriage (which can be conferred -- or denied -- by many religious institutions without state sanction), is the fact that civil marriage provides hundreds of rights and responsibilities under both state and federal law -- mostly in the areas of tax, property, and other real-world concerns.

But legal rights have human implications. Can you imagine being denied the right to remain in your house -- quite possibly your home for the better part of your life -- after your partner dies because you were denied the right to marry? Can you imagine having to lie and claim to be your partner's sibling in order to be at his or her deathbed? I, for one, have never wanted to live a lie, and it's appalling that current law forces some Americans to do so.

Of course, we in Massachusetts have the benefit of living in an a "free state" that treats same-sex couples equally and with dignity, and where people are not judged by their choice of life partner but by the content of their character. But lest we get too righteous, remember that it was less than a decade ago that Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court penned her revolutionary and elegant opinion granting equal rights under our state constitution -- our Declaration of Rights -- to same-sex couples to marry.

And who can forget the battle that raged after that Supreme Judicial Court decision, when then-out-going governor Mitt Romney and anti-equality forces tried to pass a ballot initiative to write discrimination into our state constitution -- our nation's oldest state constitution, written by John Adams.

Fortunately, leaders in the Massachusetts legislature -- the Speaker of the House, the Senate President, and Governor Deval Patrick -- worked together, united, to do something both big and courageous. Together, they took a principled stance and said "No" to putting the right to discriminate against a subset of Americans to a popular vote. To do otherwise would violate the Equal Protection clause of our Constitution and Bill of Rights -- the one that provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It is on the basis of the Bill of Rights, specifically the Equal Protection clause, that Judge Vaughn Walker based his opinion in federal court this week. And on that basis the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and, ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court will determine the fate of our fellow Americans, and of our ideal of building a land of equal opportunity for all.

I am confident, especially after reading Judge Walker's opinion, that our nation will realize the dream of equal rights under law. As that other great philosopher, Molly Ivins, once said, "It is possible to read the history of this country as one long struggle to extend the liberties established in our Constitution to everyone in America."

So, go ahead -- defend marriage by ensuring that yours is a good one, and by working to ensure that everyone else has an equal right to do the same.