Massachusetts legislators are clinging to a pointless procedural move to avoid passing to voters a proposed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. By doing so, they are merely hastening the day that voters decide the state’s oversight of their marriages is superfluous.

The Massachusetts supreme court ruled in 2003 that same-sex couples had the right to marry, inspiring some residents of the commonwealth to gather signatures on an initiative that would define marriage as between one man and one woman. Eventually, 123,356 signatures were certified, more than enough to move the measure on the ballot, though first one-fourth of legislators in two consecutive sessions must vote to do so.

The Democratically controlled legislature has so far refused to hold that vote, and today is the final day of the session. Last week the court rebuked the legislature for its “indifference to, or defiance of, its constitutional duties.” Certainly, it should hold the vote and pass the measure to voters. In doing so, lawmakers there or anywhere might notice that with or without laws concerning same-sex unions, the nation’s attitude has changed radically in the last two decades and shows signs of continuing to change toward acceptance of gays.

Recently, a poll conducted for the Concord Monitor in New Hampshire found that while 55 percent opposed gay marriage, 35 percent supported it, and a plurality of 44 percent approved of civil unions for same-sex couples. Maine already has a domestic partner registry, giving partners legal status similar to those of married couples in areas such as guardianships, conservatorships and inheritance.

To avoid endless fights over marriage, it won’t be long before some lawmakers begin to wonder whether the state belongs in the wedlock business at all. With legal questions already covered in civil-union laws, which can apply to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, why not let churches and synagogues handle the marriage part?

A couple of years ago, columnist Michael Kinsley wrote, “If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriage would become irrelevant. Gay marriage would not have the official sanction of government, but neither would straight marriage. There would be official equality between the two, which is the essence of what gays want and are entitled to. And if the other side is sincere in saying that its concern is not what people do in private, but government endorsement of a gay ‘lifestyle’ or ‘agenda,’ that problem goes away, too.”

That would leave arguments over marriage where they belong – between spouses.