01:00 AM EST on Thursday, November 11, 2004

Now this would be interesting: Get Republican Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Democratic Mayor David Cicilline of Providence in the same room and let them debate gay marriage and the fact that voters in 11 states on Nov. 2 approved constitutional amendments to ban it.

Romney says he and many other Americans bear no ill will toward gays and simply view marriage as a traditional institution involving a man and a woman. He predicts Bay State voters in 2006 will approve an amendment banning gay marriage but providing for civil unions. (Many of the Nov. 2 referenda do ban civil unions.)

The move for constitutional amendments was touched off by a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision allowing gay marriages. A byproduct, says Romney, is that the ballot questions drew a "huge number" of supporters of George W. Bush to the polls and "may well have accounted for his success in Ohio," thus dooming the candidacy of Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts.

Cicilline says Romney's opposition to same-sex marriage is misguided, that Bay State voters will appreciate that such pairings are good for society, that Republicans promoted the Nov. 2 referenda as a way to mobilize support for Mr. Bush, and that the 23 percent of gay Americans that exit polls say voted for him engaged in "self-loathing in its worst form."

During a visit to The Providence Journal, Romney told me he believes in guaranteeing rights to gay couples. "I'm committed to tolerance and respect and understanding of people who choose a different lifestyle and a different union with someone else. But I believe the term 'marriage' should be preserved for a man and a woman." Such arrangements, he said, are the "ideal" setting for raising children; even divorced parents share such responsibilities. "That's something which the great majority of Americans agree to. I believe that, even in Massachusetts, you'd see the majority agree to that."

In an interview in City Hall, Cicilline, who is gay, predicted that Massachusetts voters would reject a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. He said residents will have had the luxury of seeing firsthand that such marriages contribute to the "stability" of society.

The mayor added, "I don't think anybody who has thought about this carefully and understands this issue would suggest that people choose to be gay and lesbian. . . . You cannot on the one hand say 'I respect people' and 'I agree with tolerance' and at the same time argue for discriminating against the same group of people. And, frankly, gays and lesbians aren't asking to be 'tolerated.' We're asking to be valued and we're asking for the same rights and responsibilities that everyone else has. You 'tolerate' an annoying noise in a car."

Though Cicilline said the Nov. 2 referendum results were "discouraging," he voiced optimism that fairness will prevail some day. But he raged against Mr. Bush and the national GOP for pressing for a gay-marriage ban in the federal Constitution. (Though Kerry supports a Bay State gay-marriage ban, he opposes a federal one.) Cicilline said that those homosexuals who voted for the president, when Mr. Bush and his party "have an affirmative policy to discriminate against our community, to oppress the rights of gays and lesbians," were guilty of "self-loathing" at its worst.

Of course, he said, some wealthy gays may have benefited from big Bush tax cuts. Or perhaps they don't care about the environment and favor drilling in the Alaska wilderness. Or maybe they don't mind children going without health care.

You get the drift. The mayor is not happy.

M. Charles Bakst, The Journal's political columnist, can be reached by e-mail at mbakst [at] projo.com