BOSTON — The compromise that came out of the Massachusetts constitutional convention on homosexual marriage was the kind of thing Archbishop Sean O'Malley had warned against.

Legislators concluded their debates just before midnight March 12 and came out with an amendment to the state's constitution that would ban homosexual marriage but legalize civil unions. The Legislature plans to return March 29 to resume deliberations. If the arrangement survives a final vote, it will still have to be approved by a newly elected Legislature in 2005-2006 and then sent to voters in November 2006.

“We support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment as it has been presented, without the introduction of civil-unions language,” Archbishop O'Malley said in a statement the day before the convention.

Proposals to give same-sex couples identical benefits and protections to those given to husbands and wives “pose a grave threat to religious liberty and the freedom of conscience,” he stated. “Whether the name used is same-sex marriage or civil unions, an equal-treatment requirement in the constitution may be used to coerce private and public entities to adopt practices that would violate their values and understanding of the family and social justice.”

The archbishop cautioned that the amendment reaffirming marriage as the union between one man and one woman “must be approved on its own merits.”

“Joining this amendment to the issue of civil unions deprives the people an opportunity to express their views on marriage,” he stated. “Linking the two coerces people in a way that is unfair.”

It appears, however, voters might be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.

- Register staff