Since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled against the constitutionality of restricting marriage to heterosexual couples in November, opponents of gay marriage have stopped at almost nothing to delay the issuing of marriage licenses to gay couples scheduled to begin on May 17. The latest comes from Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who is seeking, through emergency legislation, to appoint a special counsel that would ask the court to postpone its final ruling for another couple of years—in hopes that a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage recently approved by the state legislature may be passed by voters before any marriage licenses are issued. Last month, Democratic Attorney General Thomas Reilly refused Romney’s request for a stay on the ruling until November, 2006, the date for the referendum. Now, Romney is desperately trying to subvert and manipulate a process that has refused to bend toward his own ends.

Though recent debates surrounding the issue of gay marriage have made it seem primarily an issue of abstract morality, the possibility that in less than a month Massachusetts citizens—and maybe even some Harvard students—will be among the first gay couples in the country to marry makes the matter seem much more real. If the SJC lets its ruling stand, the question of gay marriage will pass quickly from the realm of panel discussions and philosophical debate to the realm of Massachusetts residents’ daily lives as homosexual couples begin to enjoy a right heterosexual couples take largely for granted. The state of Massachusetts is extremely close to taking a crucial step forward in the history of the nation. We are disappointed that the Commonwealth’s governor is so determined to keep the state right where it is.

Indeed, it is unfortunate that the petty scheming of politicians like Romney may stand in the way of such enormous progress. If the court’s ruling is postponed and voters are allowed to decide on the proposed amendment, a simple majority may very well refuse to share a right that should be inalienable—a step that will be extremely difficult to correct. While the principle of majority rule is the ideological basis of any democracy, the principle that the rights of the minority should be protected is equally fundamental to both the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States. One of the primary functions of the judicial system is to provide this protection, which the SJC did in its November ruling. By attempting to circumvent the court’s ruling, Romney is undermining the essential precautions that the government has set up against the disenfranchisement of minorities.

On a moral level, the granting of marriage rights to gay couples is unassailable, and whether it happens in a month or in twenty years, it seems a virtual certainty that gay citizens across the country will be given the right to marry. But until that day, politicians like Mitt Romney and George Bush, whatever obstacles they may put in the way, are only postponing progress.